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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amended Claim 1 is directed to a patent eligible subject matter.
In response, the examiner points out that the amendment is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The processing steps of the claim can be completed by a person in series of mental steps. Using a computer processor to execute the processing steps does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner recommends amending the claim to include limitations for processing incoming data, and using a the processed or transformed data to produce an output or executing a task (i.e. displaying the classification of the input signal on a display device to a user, or using the classification to perform additional processing or to execute a task).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a “method for detecting voice using an in-ear audio sensor, the method is carried out in a processor configured to execute computer executable instructions stored in a non-volatile memory of the processor, the method is performed for each frame of input signals collected by the in-ear audio sensor, comprising the steps of: calculating a count change value based on at least one feature of an input signal of a current frame, wherein the at least one feature includes at least one of an estimated signal-to-noise ratio, a spectral centroid, a spectral flux, a spectral flux difference value, spectral flatness, energy distribution, and spectral correlations between adjacent frames; adding the calculated count change value with a previous count value of a previous frame to obtain a current count value; comparing the obtained current count value with a count threshold; and determining a category of the input signal of the current frame based on a result of the comparison, wherein the category includes noise, voiced sound, and unvoiced sound”.
The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Each of the limitation in the claim can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation and judgement. For example, the limitation to "calculating a count change value based on at least one feature of an input signal of a current frame, wherein the at least one feature includes at least one of an estimated signal-to-noise ratio, a spectral centroid, a spectral flux, a spectral flux difference value, spectral flatness, energy distribution, and spectral correlations between adjacent frames" can be done by a person evaluating a portion or segment of incoming audio from an environment with background noise and multiple speakers and determining a value or quality of speech of a particular person in the environment. The limitation “adding the calculated count change value with a previous count value of a previous frame to obtain a current count value” can be done by a person determining whether to count a particular portion or segment of audio containing speech as quality speech of a particular person and adding a number or value to the number of previous portions or segments that are considered quality speech” from a particular person in the environment. The limitation “comparing the obtained current count value with a count threshold” can be done by a person comparing the number of portions or segments of audio that are considered quality speech of a particular person to a predetermined number. Finally, the limitation “determining a category of the input signal of the current frame based on a result of the comparison, wherein the category includes noise, voiced sound, and unvoiced sound” can be done by a person determining whether the evaluated audio is noise, voiced sound, and unvoiced sound based on the comparison the number of portions or segments of audio that are considered quality speech of a particular person to a predetermined number.
Therefore, if the limitations of the claim, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element - using a processor to perform the processing steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-11, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Note: The examiner recommends amending the claim to include limitations for processing incoming data, and using a the processed or transformed data to produce an output or executing a task (i.e. displaying the classification of the input signal on a display device to a user, or using the classification to perform additional processing or to execute a task).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach, disclose or suggest the claimed limitations of (in combination with all other limitations in the claim) “adding the calculated count change value with a previous count value of a previous frame to obtain a current count value; and comparing the obtained current count value with a count threshold.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654