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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejection remains for reasons as set forth below. The claims recite steps that can be characterized as mental processing and organizing human activity including obtaining a recording, extracting features, associating spoken words with speaker and determining attributes. These tasks are analogous to tasks that can be performed by a human listener either mentally or with generic processors. The claims are directed to organizing human activity, specifically attributing speech among participants in a conversation. The use of machine learning models does not meaningfully limit the claims, as they are described at a high level and merely implement conventional data analysis. Similar to claim 15. It recites that an LM is trained using multi-speaker dialogs, but does not explicitly recite how the training is done and how the training is used for a particular purpose, as discussed in the interview dated May 5, 2026. The mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on a generic “computing device” or to use conventional machine learning (LM is trained) is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claim does not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
Ex Parte Desjardins is distinguishable from the presently claimed invention. In Desjardins, the claims were found to recite specific technological improvement to a particular machine, namely improvements to model training and performance that addressed a technological problem in computer functionality. In contrast, the present claims do not recite an improvement to the diarization model, the language model or the computer technology.
In addition, according to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained below, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained below the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2A Prong 2 provides examples of limitations that the courts have found indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception into a practical application. Applicants also explain that the instant claims provide a solution to problems, thereby integrating the exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to a technical field. However, the steps which lead to the improvement and the improvement itself is not explicitly recited the claims. Although, Applicants point to what the courts have found, what the courts have found is not comparable to the current claim language. Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The specification nor the claims reflect the improvements claimed in the arguments. In the instant claims, the abstract idea results in an output of generic “information” that is not utilized in any particular fashion or for any particular purpose. It does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. While the claimed invention may have some use in technical fields, that use or implementation in particular technology or technological environment has not been recited in the claimed invention. Absent these recitations, the only claim elements that remain are generic computer components that do not qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory. As explained below, using the models to determine which speakers produced spoken words can be done by a human. If the claims include details regarding the training of the models and how the trained models are used for a particular purpose, similar to how the specification describes in paragraphs 0017-0018, 0022-0024 and 0026-0027, just to list a few. The claims will be statutory under 101.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of speaker recognition, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, 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 “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, obtaining a recording of multi-speaker conversation (can be done by a user listening to a plurality of user speaking and recording the data), extracting audio features representative of one or more spoken words from the multi-speaker conversation (can be done by a user extracting features from what is heard), processing, using a speaker diarization model, the audio feature to generate a first association of the audio feature with one or more prospective speakers, from the multi-speaker conversation (can be done by a user associating voice with a speaker), providing, to a language model (LM), a first prompt requesting the LM to identify a second association of the one or more spoken words with the one or more prospective speakers (can be done by a user providing the data accordingly), processing, from the LM, a first response identifying the second association of the one or more spoken words with the one or more prospective speakers (can be done by a user identifying a speaker), determining, using the first associations and the second association, one or more speakers that produced the one or more spoken words (can be done by a user making a determination) and causing presentation of words (can be done by a user presenting the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) 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.
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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite providing and receiving data, performing an association, evaluating probabilities, processing audio and making an estimation, which is all non-statutory and mental processing.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights