DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Arguments and Amendments filed on 11/11/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Any previous objection/rejection not mentioned in this OA has been withdrawn from this rejection.
A new non-final rejection is being presented due to earlier issues not addressed.
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 .
Change of Examiner
The Examiner of record for this application has changed to Paras Shah.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections are moot in view of new grounds for rejections. Please see the additional rejections 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 1-20 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.
The newly added limitation in the independent claims recite “wherein the stride value defines a reduction factor by which an input will be reduced during processing by a layer of a machine learning model’s neural network”. The Applicant’s as filed specification provides several instances in attempting to provide support for this limitation. For example, para [0008] and [0014] recites “A stride value is the reduction factor in an output of a layer of a machine learning model's neural network. For example, the stride value defines the factor by which an input will be reduced during processing by a subsequent layer of a machine learning model's neural network.” Here stride value is defined as the reduction factor in an output of a layer of al ML model’s neural network. Further, it is redefined as the factor by which an input will be reduced during processing by a subsequent layer of a ML model’s NN. In other words, the input is reduced when the subsequent layer is processed OR with respect to a reduction factor in an output of a layer. However, this is not recited in the present claims and it appears to be defining the stride value as related to only the input to the present/current layer of a ML model which is not supported by the Specification. The Applicant is recommended to amend the claims in accordance with what is supported by the Specification.
Dependent claims are further rejected based on the new matter found in the independent claims as they do not remedy the issue noted above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “worst” AND “best” in claims 1, 9, and 14 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “worst” and “best” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner notes that these terms are relative in the sense of what is considered “worst” and what is considered “best”. These have not been defined in the Specification. The term “worst” appears 7 times in the specification. For example, paragraph [0013] “If the worst hypothesis score of the set of first information is greater than the sum of the best hypothesis score of the set of second information and a threshold value 112, the processing for the current frame is ceased 114. If the worst hypothesis score of the set of first information is not greater than the sum of the best hypothesis score of the set of second information and the threshold value 112, the frame is continued to be processed according to tasks 102 to 108.” Paragraph [0015] “(D) comparing a worst hypothesis score of the set of first information to a sum of a best hypothesis score of the set of second information and a threshold value; and (E) ceasing processing of the signal frame when the worst hypothesis score of the set of first information is greater than the sum of the best hypothesis score of the set of second information and the threshold value.” Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]: [0025] As discussed above, implementations of the present disclosure provide a determination of whether to process further emissions based on a comparison of scores of hypotheses for information processed by the model. In one example, a cease condition is added to the process described above. This stop condition states that, if the worst hypothesis score in the Finished set is higher than the sum of the best hypothesis score in the alive set plus a predetermined threshold value, the process for that frame is ceased and the model moves on to process the next frame. [0026] According to this condition, if the best score of the Alive hypothesis plus an arbitrary threshold value is not greater than the worst score in the Finished set, then it is unlikely that the Alive hypothesis, when closed with a blank token, will be merged into the finished set. At this point, further emissions will not contribute an appreciable reduction in WER, so further emissions will only increase the RTF without any accuracy improvement. In implementations of the present disclosure, the threshold value is an arbitrary number that is tuned to obtain the desired WER and RTF values for the system. In implementations of the present disclosure, the threshold value is a negative value, although positive values can be used with an appropriate adjustment in the cease condition. In other words, with a positive threshold value, the determination would be whether the best hypothesis score of the Alive set minus the threshold value is less than the worst score of the Finished set.” However in none of these instances is there any mention as to what is “worst”.
With respect to “best”, this term appears 7 times as well and none of these instances define what is “best”.
Dependent claims are further rejected based on the indefinite base claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps/function, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps/functions are found in each of the independent claims: “assign a stride value for machine learning model…determine, based on the machine learning model, a hypothesis score for each hypothesis in a set of first information for the frame of the encoded audio signal; “determine, based on the machine learning model, a hypothesis score for each hypothesis in a set of second information for the frame of the encoded audio signal”. The specific steps/functions that appear above are essential not due to the broadness of the claims but rather due to the usage of “stride”. Stride necessarily requires the inclusion of a ML model in order for it to be utilized and understood. Stride by itself would simply be a number and nothing else but when used with a ML based model, such term is an important aspect of the model. However, the present claims based on the current amendment fails to disclose the important piece of the ML model in the entire claim which amounts to a gap between the “process” and each of the ”determine” limitations as result.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 9, and 14 relate to method, system, and system thus relating to a statutory category. The claims further recite per claims 1, 9, and 14 “(A) processing a signal frame according to a time-synchronous beam search technique at a frame rate that is based on a stride value, wherein the stride value defines a reduction factor by which an input will be reduced during processing by a layer of a machine learning model's neural network;(B) determining a hypothesis score for each hypothesis in a set of first information for the signal frame; (C) determining a hypothesis score for each hypothesis in a set of second information for the signal frame; (D) comparing a worst hypothesis score of the set of first information to a sum of a best hypothesis score of the set of second information and a threshold value; and (E) ceasing processing of the signal frame when the worst hypothesis score of the set of first information is greater than the sum of the best hypothesis score of the set of second information and the threshold value.” Further, claims 9 and 15 recite “(F) repeat tasks (B) through (D) when the worst hypothesis score of the set of first information is not greater than the sum of the best hypothesis score of the set of second information and the threshold value.”
The limitation of claims 1, 9 and 14 recite “processing…”, “determining…”, “determining…”, “comparing…”, “ceasing…”, and for claims 9 and 14 the further steps of “repeat…”. as drafted covers mathematical algorithm and mental activities. More specifically, each of the limitations encompass mathematical limitations. For example, Step A, processes a frame of audio signal according to a beam search technique based on stride value where beam search technique is a mathematical algorithm, Step B and C clearly mention each of these steps to be directly related to mathematical algorithm of determining a hypothesis score, Step D relates to comparing scores based on a threshold value which is a mathematical algorithm, Step E relates to performing the step of stopping the analysis of the processing of the signal based on comparing scores to a threshold (not present in claim 14). This step relates to a mental activity of not performing a specific task associated with processing of the signal based on the threshold. With respect to the last limitation of claims 9 and 14, this relates to repeating the mathematical steps when a certain condition occurs.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “computing device” (claim 1) and “processor“ (claim 9 and 14) and “hardware storage device” (claim 9 and 14). Each of these limitations relate to merely using each of the additional elements as a tool to perform the abstgract idea. Thus, failing to tie the abstract idea to a practical application.
Paragraph [0045] addresses the processor and memory, of the as filed specification, describes the CPU and storage to be specifically “general purpose” and [0044] notes the program code to be writing in conventional programming language.
As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer as noted. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 2, the claims relate to the last limitation as noted in claims 9 and 14. Therefore, this claim is rejected for similar reasons as mentioned above.
With respect to claim 3-4, 10-11, and 16-17, the claim relates to wherein the stride value is greater than 8” or at least 12. This relates to setting the stride value in advance. No additional limitation is present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 5-6, 12-13, and 18-19, the claim relates to “wherein the set of first information comprises information from the frame including a blank token” (claims 5, 12, and 18) and “non-blank token” (claims 6, 13, and 19). This relates to defining the parameter for which the score is determined. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 7, the claim relates to “wherein the signal frame comprises a frame of an encoded audio signal.” This relates to further defining the signal frame to be processed. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 8 and 20, the claim relates to “wherein the stride value is dynamically set according to characteristics of data being processed”. This relates to a human presetting the stride value based on the data. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 15, the claim relates to Step E of claim 1 and hence are rejected for similar reasons as noted above. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office action.
A reasons for allowance has not been provided due to the issues with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101. Once these have been rectified, a reasons for allowable subject matter will be provided as the scope of the current claims could change as a result and the allowable subject matter currently is considering the present claims as a whole in view of the past prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN113707137A is cited to disclose decoding speech using an HMM model using blank characters.
Yu et al.(“FastEmit: Low-Latency Streaming ASR with Sequence-Level Emission regularization”) is cited to disclose streaming ASR and usage of blank and nonblank tokens. Zhang et al. (“Non-parallel Sequence-to-Sequence Voice conversion for Arbitrary Speakers”) is cited to disclose CTC-ASR model and usage of blank tokens. Zhang et al. (“Internal Language Model Estimation for Domain-Adaptive End-to-End Speech Recognition”) is cited to disclose RNN-T method including beam search for hypothesis scoring using blank/nonblank tokens. Pratap et al. (“Meng, Zhong, et al. "Internal language model estimation for domain-adaptive end-to-end speech recognition." 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT). IEEE, 2021.”) is cited to disclose performing speech recognition using CTC and words and blank tokens. Pratap et al. (“Star Temporal Classification: Sequence Classification with Partially Labeled Data”) is cited to disclose CTC for speech recognition and usage of emission graphs and blank tokens for hypothesis estimation and node traversal. Fan et al. (“A CTC Alignment-based Non-autoregressive transformer for end-to-end Automatic Speech Recognition”) is cited to disclose TAE generation using beam search and CTC based aligment NAT and also using blank tokens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARAS D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-2:30PM, 5PM-7PM (EST), Friday 8AM-noon (EST).
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.
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.
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
02/04/2026