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 Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed August 27, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on November 21, 2025, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. However, the claim amendments are not supported by the specification, as described below.
Furthermore, the 101 rejection remains for reasons as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There are numerous elements that are mentioned in the currently amended claim language, but is not disclosed in the specification. For example, there is no mention of a neural network speech synthesis model, tokens, a response sentence incrementally in units and synthesizing occurring before an entire response, just to mention a few new matter issues. If the specification or drawings provides support, it is recommended to show where each element is supported in the specification, to provide clarity.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding the 101 rejection Step 2A — Prong One (Identification of the judicial exception) The claim is directed to the abstract idea of receiving input, processing the input to determine a textual response, and presenting that response in audio form. This is an abstract concept that may be characterized as a method of organizing human activity and an information-processing/manipulation practice (i.e., collecting/transmitting data, analyzing/transforming information, and communicating results). The essential concept — forming a response to a user utterance and converting text to speech — is an abstract idea that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, or by generic computer components performing routine data processing. The claim recites high-level functional steps (receive streaming utterance; generate response tokens; synthesize speech per token) without reciting sufficiently specific technical implementation details.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application) The claim does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a specific, practical technological application beyond the mere use of generic computer components and generic machine-learning/speech synthesis models. The claim recites a machine-learning-based conversation model and a neural network-based speech synthesis model, but does not describe any particular, non-conventional architecture, specific data structures, novel scheduling/buffering mechanisms, hardware acceleration, specified communication protocols, or any other detailed technical features that improve the functioning of the computer itself or that solve a technical problem in a specified way. The recited elements are expressed at a high level of generality and amount to using conventional computing components to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2B — Whether the claim contains an “inventive concept” Even if the claim is viewed as directed to an abstract idea, the claim does not recite additional elements that transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. The features recited (a processor executing a machine-learning conversation model and a neural network vocoder synthesizing speech in response to token outputs) are described at a functional level and are thus insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept under Alice. The claim lacks limitations that identify unconventional implementation, a novel arrangement of components producing a technical improvement, or specific features that would make the claimed combination more than the abstract idea plus conventional computer activity. As such, the claim amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using routine, conventional computer components and generic machine-learning/synthesis models.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as outputting and synthesizing additional data which is mental processing and non-statutory.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657