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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 10, and 16:
Applicant argues on pgs. 9-11 that amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 are patent eligible. Specifically, Applicant argues that amended limitations added to these claims (“generating, via an embedding module” and “providing, for display, an indication of the dominant language”) recite limitations which cannot be performed mentally in the human mind, and which integrate alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
First, claims 1, 10, and 16 recite several limitations which can be performed as mental processes with the aid of pen and paper. A person can listen to audio, write down an embedding signal, write down several speaker embeddings reflecting characteristics of different speaker’s speech, write down an average speaker embedding which aggregates information from distinct speakers, and uses this average embedding to determine a dominant language being spoken. Further, a person can determine a language label and can show this label to a user. While the embedding module does not fall under a mental process, generating, “via an embedding module” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. No specific architecture/model components reflecting a technical improvement, and thus it amounts to merely implementing the mental processes using a generic computer module. Furthermore, the last limitation added of “while playing back the audio file, providing, for display, an indication of the dominant language”, recites further limitations amounting to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer (e.g. playing back audio files using generic computer and display). These limitations, even when viewed in combination with the claims as a whole, are not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
Further, Applicant argues that claim 7 is patent eligible as reciting non-generic components implemented in the language identification model. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. As currently recited, this claim lists several computer component layers in a generic manner, with no specific interconnection/architecture cited between the various layers which would reflect a technical improvement. Hence, claim 7 recites further generic computer components and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note:
The Examiner notes that incorporating additional language from the Specification which reflect the technical improvement of the invention would help to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Such language could be found, for example, in para. 0046 of the Specification, which discusses how the language identification model can output language predictions at different levels of granularity based on varying the granularity of the input region over the timeline, which would reflect the technical improvement outlined in the Specification of capturing scenarios where code-switching occurs (see para. 0023).
2. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims to overcome the prior art. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
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.
3. Claims 1, 5-10, 13-16, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, “A method” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
The following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes:
“obtaining audio content…”: encompasses a person observing and hearing a person speaking
“generating… an embedding signal from the raw waveform, wherein the embedding signal comprises of a sequence of multi-dimensional vectors each corresponding to a distinct time period of the audio content”: encompasses person writing down an embedding signal corresponding to audio content that they hear, and further writing down the embedding signal as a sequence of vectors with multiple dimensions (a vector representing audio at a particular time) and corresponding each vector with a particular time, using pen and paper.
generating a series of speaker embeddings, each corresponding to a distinct speaker in the raw waveform, by performing a diarization process on the sequence of multi-dimensional vectors: a person determines who was speaking at each distinct point in time in order to write down a series of speaker embeddings each corresponding to a distinct speaker, using pen and paper.
“generating an average speaker embedding from the embedding signal by aggregating two or more of the speaker embeddings from distinct speakers in the series of speaker embeddings”: a person can take the embedding signal and generate an average speaker embedding by aggregating embeddings from distinct speakers, using pen and paper (e.g. taking the average of each dimension of distinct speaker embeddings).
“determining, …, a dominant language spoken in the raw waveform… based on the average speaker embedding”: encompasses a person evaluating and deciding a language that was most spoken based on the written average embedding.
“assigning, to the raw waveform…, a language label corresponding to the dominant language”: a person can write down a language label for an audio content corresponding to the dominant language (e.g. write down a label of “ENG” if the audio content is in mostly in English).
“providing, for display, an indication of the dominant language”: a person shows the language label on a piece of paper to the user
Claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are “extracting a raw waveform from an audio file”, “generating, via the embedding module”, “providing the average speaker embedding to a language identification model, wherein the language identification model is trained with audio data in a plurality of different languages and dialects”, “determining, via the language identification model”, and “while playing back the audio file, providing…”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception to a computer cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claim 1 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer, and thus cannot allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 5-9 and 21-22, “The method of claim 1” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes and mathematical concepts which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claims 5-9 and 21-22 recite the mental processes of claim 1 due to their dependence on claim 1. Additionally, the following limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes and mathematical concepts:
Claim 5: “…trained with labeled audio content.” Encompasses a person learning how to decide a language from a written embedding by studying labeled audio content, and learning how to correctly identify a language.
Claim 8: “wherein generating the average speaker embedding comprises performing a z-score normalization”: performing a z-score normalization comprises a mathematical concepts.
Claim 9: “generating a transcript of the audio content in accordance with the dominant language.”: encompasses a person writing down a transcript of the audio content they heard, writing down next to each piece of audio content the language they determined.
Claim 21: “wherein the embedding signal comprises a plurality of speaker regions; and the method further comprises: generating a plurality of average speaker embeddings, including generating a corresponding average speaker embedding for each speaker region of the plurality of speaker regions; and assigning a plurality of language labels to the audio content, including assigning a respective language label to each speaker region of the plurality of speaker regions based on analysis of the corresponding average speaker embedding”: a person writes down an embedding signal, with multiple vectors corresponding to a plurality of speaker regions (e.g. vectors corresponding to different sections of speech they hear from multiple speakers). A person then takes an average of the vectors for each region (e.g. compute a mean for each dimension). A person then analyzes the average embeddings, and determines a plurality of language labels for each speaker region (e.g. determining a first speaker region is in German based on analyzing the average embedding for the first speaker region).
Claims 5-9 and 21-22 do not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are “language identification model” (in claims 5, 6, 7), “a multi-class feedforward neural network” (in claim 6), “a plurality of rectified linear unit (ReLU) layers” (in claim 7), “a normalization layer” (in claim 7), “a dropout layer” (in claim 7), and “composed of multiple compute blocks, and wherein each compute block of the multiple compute blocks comprises a plurality of ReLU layers and a normalization coupled to an output of the plurality of ReLU layers” (in claim 22). As discussed above, “language identification model” is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. Similarly, the remaining limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and thus also amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception to a computer cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 5-9 and 21-22 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer, and thus cannot allow the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 5-9 and 21-22 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, “A computing system” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those recited in method claim 1, and thus also recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (see claim 1 analysis above) (Step 2A Prong 1: YES).
Claim 10 does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional limitations are “extracting a raw waveform from an audio file”, “generating, via an embedding module”, “providing the average speaker embedding to a language identification model, wherein the language identification model is trained with audio data in a plurality of different languages and dialects”, “while playing back the audio file, providing…”, “determining, via the language identification model”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “one or more programs stored in memory…”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception to a computer cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer, and thus cannot allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 13-15 and 23-25, “The computing system of claim 10” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (machine) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those recited in dependent claims 5-6, 8-9, and 21-22, and thus also recite mental processes (Step 2A Prong 1: YES) (see dependent claims analysis above).
Claim 13-15 and 23-25 do not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2: NO). The only additional limitations are those discussed with regards to dependent claims 5-6, 8-9, and 21-22, which all amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception to a computer cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 13-15 and 23-25 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer, and thus cannot allow the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 13-15 and 23-25 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (article of manufacture) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to those recited in method claim 1, and thus also recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES) (see above analysis for claim 1).
Claim 16 does not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional limitations are “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “extracting a raw waveform from an audio file”, “generating, via an embedding module”, “providing the average speaker embedding to a language identification model, wherein the language identification model is trained with audio data in a plurality of different languages and dialects”, “determining, via the language identification model”, and “while playing back the audio file, providing…”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception to a computer cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer, and thus cannot allow the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 19-20 and 26-27, “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16” is recited, which is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (article of manufacture) (Step 1: YES). However, the claims limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations similar to dependent claims 6, 8, and 21-22, and thus also recite mental processes which fall into the category of abstract idea (Step 2A Prong 1: YES) (see above analysis for dependent claims).
Claim 19-20 and 26-27 do not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional limitations are those discussed above with regards to dependent claims 6, 8, and 21-22, which all amount to mere instructions to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception to a computer cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 19-20 and 26-27 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer, and thus cannot allow the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 19-20 and 26-27 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1, 5-10, 13-16, and 19-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beaufays et al. (US 9,275,635 B1): identifying languages using version specific language models (Fig. 3; Col. 7)
Delfino et al. (WO 2024/209203): language identification, and display of language next to timestamps of audio for audio file (Fig. 8A)
Synder et al. (NPL Spoken Language Recognition using X-vectors): language identification via speaker embeddings (x-vectors), trained to classify audio into languages/dialects (sections 4-5)
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 CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON whose telephone number is (703)756-1601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at (571)-272-7799. 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.
/CODY DOUGLAS HUTCHESON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights