DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks dated 10/15/2025 have been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, Applicant argues that paras. 0035, 0050, and 0059-0066 provide written description support for the claim amendments.
The examiner agrees that such disclosure, together with at least para. 0025, provide sufficient written description support for the claim amendments.
On page 9 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant generally argues that “claims 1, 11, and 18 as amended do not fall into the category of ‘mental processes.’”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the detailed rejections below (and as explained with respect to Applicant’s more specific arguments), there are several mental processes recited in each of the independent claims.
On page 11 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues with respect to the Ex Parte Hannun decision:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the Ex Parte Hannun decision is analogous. As an initial matter, the examiner does agree that the newly-added “decoupling the receiving plurality of telemetry data streams” limitation is not a mental process, and therefore such limitation is addressed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
However, the specific manner of transcribing data, including “steps of normalizing an input file, generating a jitter set of audio files, generating a set of spectrogram frames” ... is appreciably different from “associating ... a plurality of searchable content items ... usable to search one or more of the associated telemetry data streams as required herein.” In particular, the “transcribing data” of Ex Parte Hannun required manipulation and transformation of audio files, whereas the present claims merely require “associating” data used to search audio files, and a human can mentally associate data with an audio file (e.g., associate a gunshot sound with an audio file, and then listen to other audio files for a similar gunshot sound).
On page 11 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
182
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims do not recite “training” “large-scale telemetry data streams.” Rather, they claim training “sub-models” which can be performed mentally. The examiner notes, however, that training “machine-learning sub-models” would not be a mental process, although such training step would likely require additional details about how such training is an improvement to technology under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Second, “tagging” and “associating” can be performed mentally. A human can mentally “tag” or “associate” a sound with an audio file, for example, and can also mentally “search” for a particular sound within audio files simply by listening mentally. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “tagging” does not require any manipulation or changing of the audio file itself. For example, a human can listen to 2 audio files, and then mentally tag (or write on a piece of paper) a sound associated with each of the 2 audio files.
On pages 12-13 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
70
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
292
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Aside from the “decoupling” limitation, the limitations identified by Applicant are merely mental processes, and therefore the only improvement by the claims is to the mental processes themselves, and not to a technology or other technical field.
With respect to the “decoupling” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
On page 13 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
250
658
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any limitations relating to “updating searchable audio content in multi-media.” The claims do not require any modification or changing of any audio files in any manner to improve their searchability. At most, the claims simply require “associating” “searchable content items” so that they can be used to search data streams, but the data streams themselves are not modified in any way”, and the “searchable content items” can merely be mental findings (e.g., a phrase, see instant specification at para. 0034) that are used to mentally search through audio files by listening.
On page 14 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
136
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) explains that whether an additional element is “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity is a useful consideration, it is not a standalone test under Step 2B. The examiner further notes that Applicant any evidence supporting that such limitations are not “well-understood, routine, or conventional” and therefore this factor does not favor nor disfavor a finding of subject matter eligibility.
On page 14 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
106
640
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Any means of decoupling are covered by such claim language, and there are no specific mechanisms claimed (much less any improvements to such mechanisms” to make this limitation an “additional element” that is “substantially more” under Step 2B.
On pages 14-15 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, with respect to Step 2B, Applicant argues that the “associating” step is an “additional element.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, this is merely a mental process that is not available to be an “additional element” under Step 2B.
On pages 16-17 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by HAN, Applicant makes arguments relating the now-amended “associating a searchable content item” limitation.
The examiner respectfully submits that such arguments are moot in view of Applicant’s amendments to this claim limitation. The examiner agrees that HAN does not teach the amended version of this limitation, and therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the HAN and JOHN references are provided herein, where such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
On pages 18-19 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of the HAN and DEFRANCESCO references, Applicant argues that the DEFRANCESCO reference does not teach decoupling a “plurality” of streams, where the claims have been amended to specifically require such “plurality.”
The examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s arguments are moot because the DEFRANCESCO reference is no longer used in any grounds of rejection.
On pages 19-20 of Applicant’s 10/15/2025 Amendment and remarks, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that the dependent claims should be allowed for the same reasons explained with respect to the independent claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons explained as to the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, Claims 1-10 are directed to “one or more computer-readable storage medium (an article of manufacture), Claims 11-17 are directed to a method (a process), and claims 18-20 are directed to a system (a machine), which each fall within one of the four statutory categories of inventions.
The examiner notes that claims 1-10 recite “one or more computer-readable storage media” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of such term ordinarily includes transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”). MPEP 2106.03. However, the examiner notes that para. 0039 states that “computer-readable storage media includes, but is not limited to, ... or any other non-transmission medium that can be used to store information for access by a computing device. As defined herein, computer-readable storage media do not consist of and are not formed exclusively by modulated data signals, such as a carrier wave.” (emphasis added.) The examiner finds that in view of this disclosure of para. 0039, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more computer-readable storage media” excludes a “signals per se” interpretation.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “computer-readable storage media”, “computers”, “multi-media devices”, “data storage”, trained sub-models”).
training, ..., one or more sub-models based at least in part on at least a portion of stored decoupled telemetry data streams that are associated with one or more audio content types; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally train a sub-model of a greater audio detection model to detect certain sounds, like how a person can mentally come up with characteristics for identifying glass breaking, a gunshot, or people screaming, by listening to an audio stream decoupled from a video stream (e.g., by closing eyes, or playing the sound without a display screen))
generating, ..., one or more outputs of the one or more trained sub-models based at least in part on the stored telemetry data streams; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally output (e.g., say aloud or write on paper) the category of each telemetry data stream, such as whether the human has mentally detected glass breaking, a gunshot, or people screaming)
tagging, ... the stored decoupled telemetry data streams based at least upon the generated outputs; and (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally determine the detected sound, and can append such detected sound as a tag to the data stream when its stored)
associating, ... a plurality of searchable content items with the stored decoupled telemetry data streams based at least in part on the tagging, wherein each of the searchable content items is usable to search one or more of the associated telemetry data streams from the stored decoupled telemetry data streams. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally determine the detected sound, and can append such detected sound as a tag to the data stream when its stored, where the human can use the detected sound to search one or more associated audio streams for a same or similar sound)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “computer-readable storage media”, “computers”, “multi-media devices”, “data storage”, trained sub-models”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “One or more computer-readable storage media collectively storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more computers to collectively perform operations comprising” limitation, such limitations are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of computer-readable storage media and computers. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (computer-readable storage media and computers). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “decoupling the received plurality of telemetry data streams into a plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “receiving, by an event streaming platform, a plurality of telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “storing, by a telemetry data storage, the plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such additional element of a data storage step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data, i.e. post-solution activity of data storage for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “by a multi-media content identifier” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of a multi-media content identifier. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a multi-media content identifier, which is claimed at a high level such that it is a generic computing function). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “computer-readable storage media”, “computers”, “multi-media devices”, “data storage”, trained sub-models”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “One or more computer-readable storage media collectively storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more computers to collectively perform acts comprising” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “decoupling the received plurality of telemetry data streams into a plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “receiving, by an event streaming platform, a plurality of telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “storing, by a telemetry data storage, the plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data storage step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of storing data, i.e. post-solution activity of storing data after or during use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to storing information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “by a multi-media content identifier” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the decoupled telemetry data streams include audio and video contents that were subscribed to be received and stored in the telemetry storage device and without affecting continuity of the receiving of the plurality of telemetry data streams from the multi-media devices” limitation, this limitation merely describes the types of data streams being processed (audio and video), and therefore such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the decoupled telemetry data streams include audio and video contents that were subscribed to be received and stored in the telemetry storage device and without affecting continuity of the receiving of the plurality of telemetry data streams from the multi-media devices” limitation, such limitation amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as explained above, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the training includes training in parallel the sub-models to the stored telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of parallel training of sub-models. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (generic training in parallel). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the training includes training in parallel the sub-models to the stored telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein at least some of the sub-models utilize different attributes to detect an audio content. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally detect the sound of a firecracker based on attributes, such as a bang followed by a crackling sound, or the sound of a gunshot based on different attributes, such as a bang in a brief period with high volume)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein a detected audio content includes a sound of a gunshot. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally detect the sound of a gunshot based on attributes, such as a brief high-volume bang)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the different attributes utilized to detect the sound of the gunshot include at least one of: a type of dispatch event, time of day, or volume of detected sound. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally detect the sound of a gunshot based on the volume of the detected sound, as gunshots are extremely loud, and can further use the time of day or type of dispatch event as a consideration)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein a detected audio content includes a sound of a firecracker. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally detect the sound of a firecracker based on attributes, such as a bang followed by a crackling sound)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the searchable content items include at least one of a phrase, sound of an object, or a human reaction. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally write down a description of the detected sound as a phrase, such as “glass break detected” or “gunshot detected”, and append such phrase as a tag to the audio data stream”)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the sub-models are combined to generate a data model. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally combine the different sub-models (e.g., for glass breaking, gunshot, person yelling) into a comprehensive sound detection model in the human mind)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein the tagging of the plurality of stored decoupled telemetry data streams includes tagging different timestamps in the plurality of stored decoupled telemetry data streams to be associated with the searchable content items. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally determine the time at which the detected sound was detected, and can append such timestamp as a tag to the data stream when its stored, where such tag is written in text such that it is searchable)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11
Step 2A, prong 1 (Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea).
Claim 11 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “computer-implemented”, “multi-media devices”, “trained sub-models”).
training one or more sub-models based at least in part on one or more of the plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams that are associated with one or more audio content types (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally train a sub-model of a greater audio detection model to detect certain sounds, like how a person can mentally come up with characteristics for identifying glass breaking, a gunshot, or people screaming)
generating one or more outputs of the trained sub-models based at least in part on the decoupled telemetry data streams; (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally output (e.g., say aloud or write on paper) the category of each telemetry data stream, such as whether the human has mentally detected glass breaking, a gunshot, or people screaming)
tagging the decoupled telemetry data streams based at least upon the generated outputs; and (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally determine the detected sound, and can append such detected sound as a tag to the data stream when its stored)
associating a plurality of searchable content items with the decoupled telemetry data streams based at least in part on the tagging, wherein each of the searchable content items is usable to search one or more of the associated telemetry data streams from the decoupled telemetry data streams. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally determine the detected sound, and can append such detected sound as a tag to the data stream when its stored, where the human can use the detected sound to search one or more associated audio streams for a same or similar sound)
Step 2A, prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements (e.g., “computer-implemented”, “multi-media devices”, “trained sub-models”) which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “A computer implemented method, comprising” limitation, such limitations are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements computers. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (computers). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “receiving a plurality of telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices” limitation, such additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “decoupling the received plurality of telemetry data streams into a plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?)
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements (e.g., “computer-implemented”, “multi-media devices”, “trained sub-models”) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “A computer implemented method, comprising” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “receiving a plurality of telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices” limitation, as discussed above, the additional element of a data gathering step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “decoupling the received plurality of telemetry data streams into a plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, or provides no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and claims a method that corresponds to the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claims 2 and 11.
Regarding Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the training includes training in parallel the sub-models based at least in part on the plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of parallel training of sub-models. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (generic training in parallel). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the training includes training in parallel the sub-models based at least in part on the plurality of decoupled telemetry data streams” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1
wherein at least some of the sub-models utilize different attributes to detect different types of audio content. (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be performed mentally (or using physical aids such as pencil and paper) by a human, for example, a human can mentally detect the sound of a firecracker based on attributes, such as a bang followed by a crackling sound, or the sound of a gunshot based on different attributes, such as a bang in a brief period with high volume)
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and regarding Step 2B, there are no additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and claims a method that corresponds to the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 5, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claims 5 and 14.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and claims a method that corresponds to the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 6, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claims 6 and 15.
Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and claims a method that corresponds to the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 7, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claims 7 and 14.
Regarding Claim 18
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 18 recites a computer system that corresponds to the method of claim 11, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 with respect to claim 11 also applies to this claim 18. While claim 18 recites additional generic computing components (“processors”, “memory”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 18 recites a computer system that corresponds to the method of claim 11, and therefore the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 with respect to claim 11 also applies to this claim 18. While claim 18 recites additional generic computing components (“processors”, “memory”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Claim 18 recites a computer system that corresponds to the method of claim 11, and therefore the analysis under Step 2B with respect to claim 11 also applies to this claim 18. While claim 18 recites additional generic computing components (“processors”, “memory”), such additional generic computing components do not change the analysis under Step 2B.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and claims a system that corresponds to the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons explained above with respect to claims 2 and 18.
Regarding Claim 20
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding the “wherein the training includes training the one or more sub-models in parallel with receiving the one or more telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of parallel training of sub-models. This additional element is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (generic training in parallel). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Regarding the “wherein the training includes training the one or more sub-models in parallel with receiving the one or more telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices” limitation, such limitation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, because the limitation merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180248929 A1, hereinafter referenced as HAN, in view of US 9774825 B1, hereinafter referenced as JOHN.
Regarding Claim 1
HAN teaches:
One or more computer-readable storage media collectively storing computer-executable instructions that upon execution cause one or more computers to collectively perform operations comprising: (HAN, para. 0014: “The memory may include a program storage area and a data storage area. The processor is connected to the memory and executes computer readable code (“software”) stored in a random access memory (RAM) of the memory (for example, daring execution), a read only memory (ROM) of the memory (for example, on a generally permanent basis), or another non-transitory computer readable medium. Software can be stored in the memory. The software may include firmware, one or more applications, program data, filters, rules, one or more program modules, and/or other executable instructions. The processor is configured to retrieve from the memory and execute, among other things, instructions related to the processes and methods described herein.”)
receiving, by an event streaming platform, a plurality of telemetry data streams from a plurality of multi-media devices; (HAN, Fig. 1, para. 0015: “In some embodiments, the communications system controller 14 is capable of performing audio speech-to-text analysis on audio streams and audio stream snippets transmitted through the communications system 10.”
HAN, Fig. 2, para. 0020: “FIG. 2 illustrates a method 100 for generating and transmitting role-specific audio snippets. As an example, method 100 is described in terms of public safety personnel responding to an emergency incident, for example, a structure fire. In the exemplary embodiment the first communication device 18 may need to receive an audio stream snippet generated by the second communication device 20. As noted above, other embodiments include more than two communication devices. Additionally, embodiments of the invention process more than one audio stream snippet. For example, the communications system controller 14 executes method 100 repetitively to continuously receive and process the audio stream snippets being transmitted in the communications network 12. Some embodiments of the invention are capable of processing multiple audio stream snippets simultaneously.”;
HAN, para. 0034: “At block 109, in some embodiment the communications system controller 14 determines at least one annotation for the audio stream snippet. An annotation is supplementary electronic data (for example, a text string, a picture, or an audio or video file) that provides the recipient of the audio stream snippet with information regarding the audio stream snippet. In such embodiments, the first communication device 18 is capable of receiving and displaying (or playing) the electronic file. The audio stream snippet annotations may be a speech-to-text translation of the audio stream snippet (for example, in a noisy environment), an audio stream snippet source (for example, an indication of the sender of the audio stream snippet), a location for the source, a timestamp for the audio stream snippet, an audio stream snippet emergency level, snippet logical meta data, or a combination of the foregoing. In some embodiments, the annotation may snippet rich data (for example, an audio file of the audio stream snippet, which can he stored in the first communication device 18 and played back at a later time). In some embodiments, a snippet rich data annotation may be a video clip.”
Examiner’s Note (EN): communications system controller 14 receives audio stream snippets from first communication device 18 and second communication device 20. As explained by para. 0018, the devices 18 and 20 can be portable radios, and as explained by para. 0034, the devices 18 and 20 can play audio and video files, display pictures and text strings, corresponding to recited “multi-media device” limitation; the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “telemetry data streams” includes collecting data or measurement from remote points, and therefore transmissions to and from devices 18 and 20 by communications system controller 14 correspond to “telemetry data streams”)
storing, by a telemetry data storage, the plurality of (HAN, para. 0025: “The communications system controller 14 saves the audio stream snippet in an electronic format to a memory, or to the communications system database 16, from which the communications system controller 14 can access the audio stream snippet for analysis and retransmission (as described in more detail below).”; (EN): the audio streams are stored in a memory or the communications system database 16)
training, by a multi-media content identifier, one or more sub-models based at least in part on at least a portion of the plurality of stored (HAN, para. 0016: “In some embodiments, a computer program (for example, a learning engine) is configured to construct an algorithm based on inputs. Supervised learning involves presenting a computer program with example inputs and their desired (for example, actual) outputs. The computer program is configured to learn a general rule (for example, an algorithm) that maps the inputs to the outputs from the training data it receives. Machine learning can be performed using various types of methods and mechanisms.”;
HAN, para. 0026: “At block 107, the communications system controller 14 analyzes the audio stream snippet to determine at least one audio stream snippet characteristic for the audio stream snippet. ... In some embodiments, the communications system controller 14 may utilize machine learning engines and predictive models to determine the audio stream snippet characteristics.”;
Examiner’s Note: the portion of the communications system controller 14 that determines audio