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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: there are two claims labeled as Claim 14, where the first one should be numbered Claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, which is a process; claims 10-11 are directed to a data processing device, which is a machine or an article of manufacture; claims 12-14 are directed to a communication device, which is a machine or an article of manufacture; claim 15 is directed to a storage medium, which is a machine or an article of manufacture. Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claims 1 recites providing audio and values to a neural network, which is a mental process. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, the remaining limitations appear to be intended use, and the practical application is not claimed.
Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claim 1, providing audio and values to a neural network is a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, a human could determine what data and values should be used in the processing, and provide them as inputs. The remaining limitations appear to be intended use of the method, but the limitations are not positively claimed. For example, language such as “can be trained” and “thereby providing” do not positively recite the training or the result of the method. Therefore, the remaining limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, 11, and 14, the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, providing information is a mental process, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 6, providing the device and adjusting values are mental processes, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, configuring devices is a mental process, which is an abstract idea. Additional limitations of microphone and speaker are generic computing components, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, obtaining audio and values to a neural network is a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, a human could determine what data and values should be used in the processing, and provide them as inputs. The remaining limitations appear to be intended use of the method, but the limitations are not positively claimed. For example, language such as “can be trained” and “thereby providing” do not positively recite the training or the result of the method. Therefore, the remaining limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, microphone and speaker are generic computing components, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, a computer-readable storage medium is a generic computing component, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
The limitations of the claims, taken alone, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson, 409 U.S. at 63.
See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0031733 A1 Abstract teaches training a speech recognition model including neural networks, while para [0040] teaches using different loss functions for different types of inputs; US 2020/0051549 A1 para [0104] teaches minimizing training loss functions for different tasks performed by the neural network; US 10,891,949 B2 col. 9 lines 20-44 teach using a tuning parameter to affect a ground truth based loss function; US 2023/0209283 A1 para [0076] teaches training a neural network using pairs of audio data and labels; US 12,518,764 B2 col. 17 lines 40-56 teaches training neural networks using loss functions using transcripts from clean and noisy speech.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0685. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658