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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 have been amended. Claim 21 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10-11, 13, and 16-18 remain pending.
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, 2, 4, 10-11, 13, 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are directed to a method, system and computer program product, reciting limitations for providing the speech recording; generating a first transcript for the speech recording using a first automatic speech recognition (ASR) model having a first number if layers and a first number of parameters; generating a second transcript for the speech recording using a second ASR model having a second number of layers ad a second number of parameters, where the first number of layers us greater than the second number of layers and the first number of parameters is greater than the second number of parameters; determining a similarity metric between the first transcript and the second transcript and determining an intelligibility score indicating intelligibility of speech in the speech recording based on the similarity metric. The limitation for “providing the speech recording,” is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person hearing/listening to the speech. The feature for “generating a first transcript….”can be achieved by the person hearing the speech and using pen and paper, transcribing the heard speech using natural language rules and principles of speech recognition models. The feature to “generating a second transcript…” can be achieved by the person having a different person transcribe the speech using different natural language rules and principles of speech recognition models. The limitation for “determining a similarity metric…,” can be achieved by a person reviewing each transcript and noting the similarities or any differences. The limitation for “determining an intelligibility score….” can be achieved by the person weighting similarities and differences and using pen and paper calculating an intelligibility score of the heard speech to determine if the speech is intelligible. The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer, apparatus, computer program product, and generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic system, computer program product, processor, storage device and computer instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic system, computer program product, processor, storage device and computer instructions to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 11, 13, and 17-18 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to steps of calculating mathematical algorithms for metrics or scores and/or organizing or manipulating functions and options for generating transcriptions.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 2, 4, 10-11, 13, 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0375288) in view of Stonehocker et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0082955), hereinafter Stonehocker, in view of Proenca et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0225389), hereinafter Proenca.
Thomson discloses a method for transcription generation technique selection. Regarding claim 1, Thomson teaches providing the speech recording [para 0020 – audio]; generating a first transcript for the speech recording using a first automatic speech recognition (ASR) model [Fig 1 (134); para00015; 0025-0028; 0036-0037 – first transcription generation technique]; providing a second transcript for the speech recording [Fig 1 (136); para00015; 0025-0028; 0036-0037 – second transcription generation technique]; wherein the second ASR model has a different transcription accuracy than the first ASR model [Thomson para 0025-0028; 0036-0037; 0040-0041]; comparing the first transcript and the second transcript [para 0036 -- monitor comparisons between the performance of the first transcription generation technique 134 and the performance of the second transcription generation technique 136]. Thomson fails to teach having a the first and second ASR models having first and second number of layers and a first and second number of parameters, where the first number of layers us greater than the second number of layers and the first number of parameters is greater than the second number of parameters. In a similar field of endeavor, Stonehocker teaches automatic speech recognition wherein one or more acoustic models may include a first acoustic model that uses a first neural network (NN) having a first number of hidden layers and a second acoustic model may include a second NN having a second number of hidden layers that is less than the first number [para 0025; 0058; 0062]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the differing layers/parameters for different models as suggested by Stonehocker, in the system of Thomson, and the results would have been predictable and provided an improved and efficient recognition system, and thereby improve system performance and the user’s experience. Thomson fails to teach determining an intelligibility score indicating intelligibility of the speech based on determining a similarity metric between the first transcript and the second transcript. In a similar field of endeavor, Proenca generates an intelligibility score representing the intelligibility of the utterance based on the output and the sample text, where generating the intelligibility score may involve (1) calculating conditional intelligibility value(s) for the N recognition result(s), and (2) determining the intelligibility score based on the conditional intelligibility value of the most intelligible recognition result [para 0017-0018; 0047-0061] and teaches the intelligibility score represents the intelligibility of the user’s utterance [para 0073]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the intelligibility scoring processing suggested by Proenca, in the system of Thomson, for the purpose of ensuring the best transcription mode is selected for the provided audio, thereby providing the most accurate transcriptions to the user.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Thomson, Stonehocker and Proenca teaches determining a similarity metric between the first transcript and the second transcript is calculated based on assigning one transcript selected from the group consisting of the first transcript and the second transcript as a ground truth [Proenca at para 0047-0061—scoring based conditional intelligibility].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Thomson, Stonehocker and Proenca teaches converting the similarity metric is based on threshold values of the similarity metric [Proenca at para 0047-0061].
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1, 2, and 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights