Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/857,932

DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS-BASED VOICE-AI PLUGIN FOR HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERFACES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 05, 2022
Examiner
NEWAY, SAMUEL G
Art Unit
2657
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
517 granted / 686 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
715
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 686 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This is responsive to the RCE filed 04 November 2025. Claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 13 are currently pending and considered below. 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 04 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome with the current amendment, however, issues still remain as shown below. Some of the issues were pointed out in the last Office action; some others are caused by the latest amendment. 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, 5-8, 10 and 13 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 the limitation "the voice input" in line 16. It is unclear if this limitation refers back to the voice input of line 5 or one of the voice inputs of lines 14-15. Note all recitation of “the voice input” after line 16 raises the same problem. The Examiner suggests amending “implementing a voice and transcript layer, wherein the voice and transcript layer processes the voice input to eliminate background noise and amplify voice inputs if the voice inputs are below a certain threshold” to ‘implementing a voice and transcript layer, wherein the voice and transcript layer processes the voice input to eliminate background noise and amplify the voice input[[s]] if the voice input[[s]] are below a certain threshold’ in lines 13-15. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the intent, entity, context” in lines 44. It is unclear if the limitation refers back to lines 23-25 or lines 41-42. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the user emotion” in lines 45. It is unclear if the limitation refers back to lines 26-27 or line 43. Further, it is suggested that “wherein the voice input is detected to be below a specified threshold and then implementing a voice signal amplification before converting the voice input to a text” in lines 6-9 of claim 1 be changed to ‘wherein if the voice input is detected to be below a specified threshold [[and]] then implementing a voice signal amplification before converting the voice input to a text’ for better clarity. Also, it is suggested that “The method of claim 5, menu or catalog management and upselling ML model is used to check a relevant menu and upsell options and identify an upsell response” in lines 1-2 of claim 6 be changed to ‘The method of claim 5, wherein the menu or catalog management and upselling ML model is used to check a relevant menu and upsell options and identify an upsell response’ for better clarity and to overcome the issue raised above. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a output” in lines 2-3 which should be amended to ‘an output’. The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected parent claim without providing a remedy. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST. 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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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. /SAMUEL G NEWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2022
Application Filed
May 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 23, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Nov 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602538
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EXEMPLAR LEARNING FOR TEMPLATIZING DOCUMENTS ACROSS DATA SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603177
INTERACTIVE CONVERSATIONAL SYMPTOM CHECKER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603092
AUTOMATED ASSISTANT CONTROL OF NON-ASSISTANT APPLICATIONS VIA IDENTIFICATION OF SYNONYMOUS TERM AND/OR SPEECH PROCESSING BIASING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596734
PARSE ARBITRATOR FOR ARBITRATING BETWEEN CANDIDATE DESCRIPTIVE PARSES GENERATED FROM DESCRIPTIVE QUERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596892
MACHINE TRANSLATION SYSTEM FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND MEDIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+7.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 686 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month