Patent Application 18365215 - Multimodal phone call application for users with - Rejection

Patent Application 18365215 - Multimodal phone call application for users with

Title: Multimodal phone call application for users with language barriers and/or hearing impairment

Application Information

• Invention Title: Multimodal phone call application for users with language barriers and/or hearing impairment
• Application Number: 18365215
• Submission Date: 2025-05-16T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-08-04T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-08-04T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 704
• National Sub-Class: 003000
• Examiner Employee Number: 84978
• Art Unit: 2693
• Tech Center: 2600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0072420🔗

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification paragraph [0008] mentions “This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2003/0072420 filed Apr. 17, 2003”.  U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2003/0072420 was patented to inventor Feigenbaumon on July 13, 2004. Current application is filed on August 4, 2023 (after patenting of  2003/0072420) by inventors Cheng and Sharifi (no common or joint inventor of 2003/0072420). Thus, instant application cannot be continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2003/0072420. Following is the requirements for the  continuation-in-part application:
(A) The first application and the alleged continuation-in-part application were filed with the same inventor or at least one common joint inventor;
(B) The alleged continuation-in-part application was "filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application"; and
(C) The alleged continuation-in-part application "contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application." (For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an application data sheet. For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be submitted either in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5) ).)  
Please see MPEP 201.08. Appropriate correction is required. It is advised to remove paragraph [0008] from the specification.
Drawings
New corrected drawings for Fig. 2 and 3 in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Fig. 2 and 3 are not legible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 2: reference character 210.  Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites acronyms “TTS” and “STT”. It is advised to recite full words for the first occurrence of the acronym. For example, “Text-To-Speech (TTS)” instead of “TTS” and “Speech-To-Text (STT)” instead of “STT”.  Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim  1 recites “takes in voice input from the line the user is calling, converting it to speech using artificial intelligence STT”. It is not clear that why would someone converts voice input to speech using artificial intelligence STT (speech to text)? As per Applicant’s specification, STT stands for Speech-to-Text [see specification Abstract and paragraph 0017]. For the examination purpose, the Examiner assumes that the voice input is converted to text using artificial intelligence STT. Claim 1 also recites “convert it to speech output…” and “convert it to speech using…”. It is not clear what “it” refers to. Claims 2-3 depend on claim 1. Therefore, they have been also rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 recites “wherein it is cross-platform…”. It is not clear what “it” refers to and what (“it”) is cross-platform.
Claim 3 recites “wherein it allows live translation…”. It is not clear who (“it”) allows live translation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.  
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.  Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070116194 to Agapi et al. (“Agapi”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240386879 to Ohayon (“Ohayon”).  	
As to claim 1, Agapi discloses an application that connects users to phone calls (landlines included) [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0022, 0031, 0033], takes in text input from the user [paragraphs 0012, 0031, 0052], converting it to speech output using TTS [paragraphs 0012, 0031], takes in voice input from the line the user is calling, converting it to speech using STT [paragraphs 0012, 0031, 0052]. 
Agapi does not expressly disclose converting voice input to text using artificial intelligence STT.  
In the same or similar field of invention, Ohayon discloses converting voice input to text using artificial intelligence STT [Ohayon paragraphs 0020, 0056].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Agapi to have feature of converting text to speech using artificial intelligence STT as taught by Ohayon.  The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide real-time language translation using generative artificial intelligence [Ohayon paragraph 0005].  
As to claim 2, Agapi discloses wherein it is cross-platform and functions on iPhones and Androids, able to call any number that operates through landline or cell service [paragraphs 0022-0024, 0023, 0050].  Agapi discloses cross-platform network such as network 140. The network 140 can include a circuit based network, such as a Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) network (landline), as well as a packet based network, such as an Internet. Network 140 can include wireless (e.g. cell service) as well as line based communication pathways (e.g. landline). 
As to claim 3, Agapi disclose translation service using translator 306 [Fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs] conversation to another language [paragraph 0056]. Further, Ohayon also discloses wherein it allows live translation during the call, allowing for calls between users that speak different languages [Ohayon paragraph 0056-0057]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 1.	
	
	Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240314260 to Reale (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0043-0044, 0094).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.





/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693