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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed July 2, 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20. Claims 6 and 9 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 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 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 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 17 are directed to methods, systems and computer readable mediums for determining words from audio/video data. The claims provide limitations for analyzing multimedia data including video data and audio data associated with the video data by detecting bounding boxed text and image regions using a layoujt analysis model to identify one or more features in the video data, which can be achieved by a person watching the video and denoting any particular features observed using rules and principles of layout analysis modelling; obtaining one or more candidate words based on the one or more features identified in the video data, the obtaining comprising deriving hot words, using vector similarity, from extracted text, image captions and video summaries associated with the multimedia data, can be achieved by the person, performing mathematical calculations to process and analyze the detected text, image captions and video summaries to generate a listing of words representative of the video; using an ASR having a corpus augmented with the hot words, determining that a particular candidate word of the one or more candidate words matches a particular utterance in the audio data can be achieved by the person generating text based on the audio that is provided and comparing the generated text with the words representative of the video features; ranking words that match the particular utterance based on a context of the one or more features, can be achieved by the person comparing the determined words with the determined context of the video and determining a level of similarity with the context and ranking the words based on the similarity; and selecting the particular candidate word for the particular utterance based on the ranking, can be achieved by the person deciding or selecting the correct word(s) that have the highest ranking.
The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or pen and paper but for the recitation of the generic computer, apparatus, medium, and generic computer components (memory processor). 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 the generic layout analysis model, computer, system, medium, and generic computer components (memory processor) 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 layout analysis model, computer, system, medium, and generic computer components (memory processor) 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 2-5, 7-8, 11-16 and 18-22 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 organizing or manipulating data for analyzing audio or video data, recognizing words from audio, recognizing people/objects seen in a video, utilizing mathematical calculations of natural language processing rules and principles to analyze/process audio/text, and generating transcriptions. The limitations of the dependent claims are steps that can be achieved via mental processing and/or using pen and paper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “ the claims recite a particular machine-learning and Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) processing pipeline for improving transcription of multimedia data” and “amended claim 1 recites, inter alia, analyzing multimedia data to identify features in video data by "detecting bounding boxed text and image regions using a layout analysis model," obtaining candidate words by "deriving hot words, using vector similarity, from extracted text, image captions, and video summaries," determining that a candidate word matches an utterance using "an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) engine having a corpus augmented with the hot words," and "ranking words that match the particular utterance based on a context of the one or more features."
The Examiner notes, the claims do not recite a particular machine learning or ASR processing but actually recites the “machine learning” and speech recognition at such a very high level of generality that the features are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, as indicated in the rejection above, the amended limitations can be achieved by a person via mental processing and/or using pen and paper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-22 would be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 can be overcome.
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 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