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 .
Interview
On 2/27/2026, the examiner contacted the attorney in hopes for a filing of a terminal disclaimer and approval for examiner’s amendment. Unfortunately, no response was received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 1,3,6,10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1,3,5,6,7,8,10,11,13,14,15,17,18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to double patenting have been fully considered. The rejection is not overcome due to the lack of filing a terminal disclaimer. Please see the office action below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 12/1/2025, with respect to allowable subject matter have been fully considered. Unfortunately, there are objections in the recited claimed language indicated below. Correction for such informalities must be completed prior to placing the case in condition for allowance as well as overcoming any rejections such as double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 9,17,18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the abbreviation “PCM”. The long equivalent to the abbreviation “PCM” is required for clarity, such as “pulse code modulation (PCM)”.
Claims 17,18 recite the abbreviation “AI”. The long term equivalent must be included with the abbreviation on the first mention for clarity. The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “artificial intelligence (AI)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a first stage of the at least two stage classifier" in “classifying an incoming audio signal …” and “further classifying the incoming audio signal …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: The recited claimed language states “at least two classification stages”. The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “a first stage of the at least two classification stages” in limitation “classifying an incoming audio signal …” and “the first stage of the at least two classification stages” in limitation “further classifying of the incoming audio signal …”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second stage of the at least two stage classifier” in “further classifying the incoming signal …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: The recited claimed language states “at least two classification stages”. The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “a second stage of the at least two classification stages”.
Claims 17,18 recites the claimed language “at least a first audio classifier for classifying ….”, “at least a second audio classifier for classifying …” and “an AI class transition detector for …”. For better clarity and to ensure correct interpretation of the claimed language by preventing interpretation of such language under 35 USC 112f and ensure alignment of interpretation with the applicant’s specification, the examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “at least a first audio classifier classifying …”, “at least a second audio classifier classifying …” and “an AI class transition detector determining …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the position of possible transition” in “wherein the accuracy …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: The claimed language recites “determining a position of the audio class transition …”. The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “the determined position of the audio class transition”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the transition detector neural network” in “wherein the accuracy …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the first stage LSTM neural network” in “wherein …” and “the input to the first stage …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: Claim 1 recites “a first of the at least two independent LSTM networks” and “a second of the at least two independent LSTM networks”. The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “the first of the at least two independent LSTM networks in the first stage”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the second stage LSTM neural network” in “wherein the input to the second stage …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: Claim 1 recites “a first of the at least two independent LSTM networks” and “a second of the at least two independent LSTM networks”. The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “the second of the at least two independent LSTM networks in the second stage”.
Claims 17,18 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 17,18 recites “wherein … performs a final classification of the incoming audio signal based on a predicted at least 3 audio classes …”. The highlighted portion of the claimed language indicates final classification is based on any prediction into any 3 audio classes, but the applicant’s drawings and specification does not support recitation. Fig. 1 shows final classification decision, output from label noise or audio classifier, speech or music classifier, non-vocal or vocal classifier and one frame decision, is determined based on the classification output from each of the classifiers shown in Fig. 1 as opposed to any prediction as recited in the limitation (highlighted above). For these reasons, the claimed language contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and/or use the invention. Note: The examiner suggests amending the claimed language to “outputs from the at least first audio classifier and the at least second audio classifier”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 18417724 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited claimed invention of this application is broader than the copending application, hence anticipates the invention of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed over prior art. Note: All rejections must be overcome prior to placing the case in condition for allowance.
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 LINDA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6044. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Andrew C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/LINDA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655