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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows. MPEP §2106(III) states that examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in this section.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to unpatentable subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-19 are directed to an apparatus, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer medium. Although claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03), the claims recite a number of steps of “detecting …”, “associating …”, “identifying …” and “applying …”. These limitations fall into a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04 (II), “laws of nature”, “natural phenomena” and “abstract idea”). The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions (MPEP 2106.04 (I) and (II)).
In light of the disclosure (Pages 10-15 in an original filed specification, or [40-56] in a published version, US PG Pub. 2025/0259627, drawing Fig. 5), a claimed subject matter is related to correct speech transcription errors (a claimed “unrecognized words”) based on contextual information (a claimed “applying a context-specific boosting”). Although the disclosure is related to a computer implemented meeting system (Fig. 3 / Fig. 4), the recited limitations could be reasonably interpreted as a speech transcriptionist (e.g., a person) listen to an audio meeting, writing down audio meeting transcripts and correcting unrecognized or incorrectly recognized words based on context information. For example, a method defined an independent claim 1 could be interpreted as:
detecting, (a person reviews a speech transcription from an audio meeting and notices unrecognized words);
associating, (The person associates speech recognition errors, e.g., misspelled names / unrecognized jargon words in the speech transcription related to a particular context / topic of the audio meeting);
identifying, (The person identifies some unrecognized words for correction); and
applying, (The person correct the speech recognition errors based on context information of the audio meeting, e.g., based on participant’s names list, a topic being discussed; Note, selecting a correct recognized word is boosting this word).
It can be seen from the above analysis, except for a generally mentioning device “by a device”, the recited limitations could be performed in human minds with a pen or a piece of paper or using a generic computer as a tool. If claim 1 were patent, a person would infringe the patent if this person is doing his job by corrects unrecognized words in a speech transcription by considering context information of an audio meeting.
Independent claim 12 is directed to an apparatus that including generic computer elements (processor or memory). Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The added general computer elements fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 recite limitations related to recognizing errors of a speech transcription.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (See a flowchart in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). In the prone one of the two prong inquiry, the above limitations recited in claims are directed to at least one of groups of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a), “Mathematical concepts”, “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, “Mental Processes”). It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir.2011). If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75,674. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
As explained above, the recited limitations could be performed in human mind or with a pen / a piece of paper. The dependent claims further recite steps for data manipulation related to the abstract idea of mental process. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process.
In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504.
Since the claimed invention falls into a judicial exception according above analysis, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Prong Two asks whether the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer was not a patentable application of that principle. Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible.
MPEP §2106.05 describes step 2B test to determine whether a claim amounts to significantly more. The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014). The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept (See MPEP §2106.05(I)(A)). It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility.
The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. By considering limitations recited in the instant claims, the claims do not improve the functions of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. The claims also do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine. The claims also do not have effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims fail to include a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. The recited “processor” / “memory” are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, that recited element does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Please notes simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The court also found “adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” is not enough to be qualify as “significantly more” considerations.
By reviewing limitations recited in the claims, none of the limitations meet the significantly more considerations. Therefore, claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter (MPEP §2106, flowchart, Step 2B, NO branch).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Abid et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0267918, referred to as Abid) in view of Alphonso et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0392432, referred to as Alphonso).
Abid is a published patent application by the same company of the instant application (Cisco Inc.). Abid discloses a method (also a system and a computer readable medium) of generating speech transcripts during an audio meeting (Abid, [0016-0017], Fig. 1). In particular, Abid discloses the meeting system detects out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words (e.g., a person’s name or a company name) and generates an intended word list based on context information and a specific personal information (Abid, [0012-0015], [0025-0028]). Abid further discloses correcting speech recognition errors based on context information (Abid, [0025-0029]).
Alphonso provides various details of correcting speech recognition errors using context information and personal class information. The Alphonso discloses re-ranking a N-best list based on context information and a persona class (Alphonso, [0030-0033], Fig. 3A/3B).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Abid discloses a method, an apparatus and a compute readable medium (Abid, Fig. 1, [0011], a computer implemented audio meeting system to correct errors in speech transcripts), comprising:
detecting, by a device, unrecognized words within an automated transcript of audio from a communication session (Abid, [0012-0013], [0026], detecting out-of-vocabular (OOV) words that are not in a word lexicon when generating speech transcripts during an audio meeting; the detected OOV words could be person’s name or company’s name);
associating, by the device, the unrecognized words with corresponding contextual data (Abid, [0013], [0025], [0028], detecting OOV by considering a given context or a specific user that is using the meeting system);
identifying, by the device, a subset of the unrecognized words for boosting (Abid, [0009], adding a selected intended word for a detected OOV word into a repository of words; Note, when adding a word to a repository of words, it boosts the score for this added word); and
applying, by the device, a context-specific boosting to the subset of the unrecognized words within an automated speech recognition model when criteria, identified based on contextual data associated with the subset of the unrecognized words, are met within the audio from the communication session (Abid, [0009], [0026], [0028-29], [0047], [0049], adding intended words for detected OOV words into repository based on context information or for a specific user; [0013], [0020], Fig. 1 #162, #174 shows when criteria are met).
Abid discloses when generating speech transcripts during an audio meeting, the transcription system detects OOV words based on contextual information or information of a specific user (Abid, [0025], [0028]). Abid discloses adding a selected intended word in to lexicon of ASR model for a detected OOV word (Abid, [0025], [0028]). Although Abid implicitly discloses recognition probability for the added word is boosted, Abid does not explicitly describe boosting. The examiner further cites Alphonso explicitly show boosting likelihood for recognizing a user’s name based on contest information and person class information.
Alphonso discloses correcting speech transcription errors by considering context information and personal information (Alphonso, [0005], [0016]). For example, Alphonso shows an example of re-ranking a N-best candidate list by considering personalized information for a user named as “Eric” (Alphonso, [0033-0034], Fig. 3B).
Both Abid and Alphonso are dealing with speech recognition by using context information and personal information. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Abid’s teaching with Alphonso’s teaching to obtain more details about boosting a likelihood for a user’s name by re-ranking a N-best candidate list based on person information. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve accuracy of speech recognition (Alphonso, [0016]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Abid in view of Alphonso further discloses:
identifying a portion of words in the automated transcript that do not exist within a precompiled large general lexicon as the unrecognized words (Abid, [0009], [0027], identifying out-of-vocabulary (OOV) in a current ASR lexicon).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Abid in view of Alphonso further discloses:
an identification of a participant in the communication session associated with the audio (Abid, [0015], [0025], [0028], identifying a specific user during an audio conference, personalized to a user).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Abid in view of Alphonso further discloses:
wherein the subset of the unrecognized words for boosting are identified based on ONE OR more of: frequency of word usage, frequency of word usage per meeting participant, number of participants in the communication session, relevance ranking, OR keyword extraction (Abid, [0025], [0029], relevance ranking; Alphonso, [0032], re-rank according to a personal class; Note, the cited reference only need to teach ONE alternative recited using “OR”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Abid in view of Alphonso further discloses:
proposing the subset of the unrecognized words via a user interface (Abid, Fig. 3, displaying candidates of unrecognized words via a user interface); and
flagging the subset of the unrecognized words as boosting candidates based on feedback collected via the user interface (Abid, [0027], [0053], a user selects a candidate word for an OOV word to add the candidate word into a lexicon).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9 and 18, Abid in view of Alphonso further discloses:
causing the subset of the unrecognized words to appear more accurately in the automated transcript of the communication session based on communication session identification characteristics meeting the criteria (Abid, [0013-0014]. Fig. 1, #162, #174; The examiner notes, limitations “causing the subset of the unrecognized words to appear more accurately” are just intended (or wishful) results that do not carry patentable weights);
causing the subset of the unrecognized words to appear more accurately in the automated transcript of the communication session based on all participants of the communication session being associated with the subset of the unrecognized words (Abid, [0012-0015], [0025], [0028], generating transcripts for an audio meeting using personalized information for meeting participants); or
causing the subset of the unrecognized words to appear more accurately in the automated transcript of the communication session based on an organizational relationship of participants of the communication session to the subset of the unrecognized words (Abid, [0012], [0014], [0047], detecting OOV based on product names, company names).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 19, Abid in view of Alphonso further discloses:
sub-word tokening the unrecognized words within the automated transcript of the audio (Abid, [0026], analyzing phonemes in OOV words);
recomposing sequences of tokenized word portions into the subset of the unrecognized words (Abid, [0024-0025], recomposing pronunciations of a word and spelling of a word; Alphonso, [0001], [0003], [0044], correct spelling of a name); and
boosting the sequences of tokenized word portions in the automated speech recognition model (Abid, [0027], adding an OOV word to a lexicon so that the OOV word is no in the vocabulary that boost its likelihood; Alphonso, [0033], Fig. 3B).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Abid in view of Alphonso and further in view of Erhart et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0081636, referred to as Erhart).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Abid in view Alphonso discloses detecting OOV words and adding a selected OOV word into an ASR lexicon (Abid, [0010-0011], Fig. 4, #412). Abid in view of Alphonso does not explicitly discloses “removing a word from a list of contextually boosted words when a frequency occurrence falls below a threshold level within a period of time”. Erhart discloses the above limitation (Erhart, [0073], [0093]; “words or terms added to a lexicon which are not expected to be permanent additions may be removed once their usage in social media channels has fallen below a predetermined threshold for at least a predetermined length of time”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Abid in view of Alphonso’s teaching with Erhart’s teaching to remove infrequency used words from a lexicon. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve a likelihood of correct match (Erhart, [0019]). In addition, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner discovered several relevant prior art references that are related to one or more concepts disclosed by the instant application. These references are included in the attached PTO-892 form for completeness of the record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659