DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 30 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Final Office Action from 20 January 2026, the Applicant has filed a response on 12 March 2026.
Claim 23 was objected to for a minor informality. The claim has been amended, removing the need for the Examiner’s objection. The Examiner hereby withdraws the claim objection.
Claims 19, 20, 21 and 24 have limitations which are given a 12(f) interpretation. The claims have not been amended in any way to overcome this interpretation. The 112(f) interpretation is maintained. Claim 23 has been amended to have its limitation be derived from claim 19, and the interpretation is attributed to claim 19 instead.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection given to the independent claims, the Applicant disagrees (Remarks: pages 10 – 11) with the Examiner’s rejection and presents amendment to the claims. The Examiner disagrees that the amended independent claims could be suitable to overcome the 101 rejection of the claims being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Taking independent claim 1 for example, the claim is directed to the mental process of determining a recognition level based on how much of the words or phrases are correctly identified as well as an emotional classification of the user’s voice in the received audio (certain expressions of emotions within an utterance making it difficult to properly recognise an utterance), this task is capable of being performed mentally; there is then the mental task of analysing an utterance to determine a level of speech recognition threshold to be able to accept words or phrases, this being based on contextual environmental information such as ambient noise; the mental task of determining a reference confidence score for keywords identified in the utterance; and then writing out the result of speech recognition based on the applied mental confidence score. The entire process of claim 1 can hereby be performed mentally. The same is applicable to the other independent claims. The Examiner hereby maintains the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection given to the claims, the Applicant has amended the independent claims in an attempt to overcome this rejection. The independent claims introduce a limitation about determining a recognition level of a received audio input based on a detection rate of voice or speech recognition of words or phrases and also based on an emotional classification of a user’s voice in the received audio input. The Applicant indicates that this limitation is however not taught by the (Remarks: page 13). This limitation is newly presented, with the previous prior-art not particularly being used to address such.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be addressed by their current presentation in the appropriate art-rejection section.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are:
“means for determining a recognition level …” in claim 19;
“means for analyzing the received audio input to determine a voice or …” in claim 19;
“means for determining a confidence score for one or more key words …” in claim 19;
“means for outputting results of a voice or speech recognition analysis …” in claim 19;
“means for analyzing the received audio input to obtain …” in claim 20;
“means for analyzing the received audio input to determine …” in claim 21;
“means for extracting background noise from the received audio input” in claim 24.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a processor as the corresponding structure described in [0075] of the Specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 10, 19 and 25 recite the limitations of determining a recognition level of received audio based on both a detection rate of a speech recognition of words or phrases as well as an emotional classification of a user’s voice as related to the received audio, analysing the received audio to determine a voice or speech recognition threshold that is obtained based on information of the recognition level and from contextual environmental, determining a confidence score for one or more identified keywords in the received audio, the confidence score representing a level of assurance that the keywords are correctly identified, and outputting voice or speech recognition results in the event that that the determined confidence score exceeds the voice or speech recognition threshold.
Nothing in the claims precludes the claims from being performed in the human mind. The entire process involves data collection, data analysis and data presentation. A human may listen to an audio uttered by another human, determine a recognition level of the audio based on a speech detection rate of words or phrases in the uttered audio and also based on an emotional classification of the other human’s voice, the human may then analyse the uttered audio to determine how well to properly address understanding the audio by determining a mental threshold of how high or how low of a confidence to be applied as the mental threshold for identified words or phrases, this mental threshold also being based on the recognition level and environmental/ambient factors, the human then applies a level of recognition confidence in the recognition of one or more keywords, such as a rating of how high or how low the user believes the recognition correctly matches the keywords, and if the human decides that the certain level of mental confidence is exceeded, presents the voice or speech recognition results. The claims hereby recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claims simply teach of collecting data in the form of the captured audio input, analysing data in the form of determining the threshold and the confidence score to then determine certain recognition results, and then presenting data in the form of outputting the results. The mentioned microphone, processor, and readable medium are recited in generic terms.
The invention is not tied to any particular defining structure and simply provides instructions to apply the judicial exception. The technique can be performed by a generic computer which would be presented as a tool to implement the abstract idea (classifiable as automation of the mental process steps). The Specification in [0024] provides such a computer serving as the claimed computing device, which can be a generic computer. This is recited at a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The claims do not provide any additional detail. The claims therefore do not include additional elements that would be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the invention is not tied to a practical application.
The claims provide techniques that amount to no more than mere instructions that apply the judicial exception which can be performed by a generic device. Merely mentioning the microphone, processor, and readable medium amounts to no more than general-purpose hardware used as tools to implement the abstract idea and does not provide any particular application other than applying it for the purpose of implementing a judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic device cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 10, 19 and 25 are not eligible.
Claims 2, 11, 20 and 26 provide analysing the received audio input to obtain environmental contextual information. A human can listen to received audio to detect the environmental contextual information contained within it at the time of the recording. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 3, 12, 21 and 27 provide analysing the received audio input to determine an emotional classification of the user’s voice. A human may listen to the audio and determine an emotional classification of the audio input. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 4, 13, 22 and 28 provide the analysing the received audio to determine an emotional classification of the user’s voice making use of the received emotional classification model. A human may receive a second human to analyse the audio for determining the emotion attached to it. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 5, 14, 23 and 29 provide determining the recognition level of the received audio through a false alarm rate of voice or speech recognition of words or phrases in the received audio. A human may apply a mathematical model to address a rate of correctly and incorrectly determined words or phrases, as a way of determining the recognition level of the received audio. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 6, 15, 24 and 30 provide extracting background noise and determining the recognition threshold based on the extracted background noise. A human may listen to an audio and consider the background noise in determining how to mentally perform voice or speech recognition. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 16 provide sending feedback to a remote device regarding whether the determined confidence score exceeds the determined recognition threshold. A human may send a report to another human at a different location on whether this condition is satisfied. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 17 provide receiving a threshold model update from a remote device and applying this to determining the recognition threshold. A human may have another human who has the knowledge of assessing a situation for determining how well to address the limits of accepting a recognition result. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 18 provide sending feedback to the remote device regarding the received audio in a format the would be understood by the remote device for generating the received threshold model update. A human may send clear instructions to the second human in the manner which the second human would clearly understand to know what to do. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, 19 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to independent claim 1, the invention states:
A method of voice or speech recognition executed by a processor of a computing device (Ramabhadran: [0076] — a processor; [0003] — performing speech recognition), comprising:
determining a recognition level of a received audio input based on a detection rate of voice or speech recognition of words or phrases in the received audio input and an emotional classification of a user’s voice in the received audio input;
analyzing the received audio input to determine a voice or speech recognition threshold that represents a reference confidence score for identified words or phrases, wherein the voice or speech recognition threshold is based on the recognition level and information obtained from contextual information detected in an environment;
determining a confidence score for one or more key words identified in the received audio input, wherein the confidence score represents a level of assurance that the one or more key words are correctly identified; and
outputting results of a voice or speech recognition analysis of the received audio input in response to the confidence score exceeding the voice or speech recognition threshold.
Closest Prior Art
The reference of Ramabhadran et al. (US 2020/0193977 A1) provides teaching for a processor [0076], performing speech recognition [0003], determining an error rate such as a word error rate which is indicative of a word detection rate and applying this error rate to select speech recognition models to be applied to a speech recognition task, this being the selection of a speech recognition model is indicative of a determined speech recognition level that is used to select an applicable speech recognition model based on the word error/detection rate [0014], the continuing of training until the error rate is below a threshold (indicating the analysis of audio to determine speech recognition threshold based on the recognition level as it pertains to the training of a language model [0041], and a pruning threshold as applied to speech recognition for the purpose of not affecting ASR performance [0057].
The reference of Kalinli-Akbacak (US 2014/0112556 A1) provides teaching for determining an emotional state of a user based on acoustic features ([0020], FIG. 1A) and applying the detected mood or emotional state of the user to select an appropriate acoustic model, the selection of an acoustic model that is to be applied for speech recognition indicates that the emotional classification is applied to determine the recognition level to be used to recognise speech [0015].
Huang (US 2015/0039305 A1) provides teaching for a speech recognition process that indicates an analysis of received audio input for the purpose of identifying spoken words or phrases, a setting module able to generate a threshold as a reference confidence score, according to an environmental parameter during speech recognition, such that a confidence score of speech recognition is compared with the threshold [0007], a speech recognition process for matching a particular word or phrase and a confidence score of speech recognition getting higher to mean the accuracy probability of the recognition result is also higher, and that the speech recognition module learns from a comparison that the speech of the signal voice has a highest matching level with a particular word/phrase, this thereby teaching of a confidence score for indicating the assurance that words are correctly identified, as well as a recognition module able to recognise a word comparing it to the most matching word, so as to then execute the command it fits [0017], and checking for a most-matching word and its computed confidence score to determine if it is larger than the threshold, so that a command can eventually be executed, this being an outputting of the results of the speech recognition analysis [0032].
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination however fail to teach, inter alia, a method for speech recognition that comprises the determination of a recognition level of an utterance that is both based on the detection rate of the speech recognition of words or phrases in the utterance as well as on an emotional classification of a user’s voice in the utterance, such that the utterance is analysed so as to be able to obtain a voice or speech recognition threshold that represents reference confidence score for identified words or phrases, with the threshold being particularly based on the recognition level of the utterance that was determined based on both the detection rate and the emotional classification.
Claim 1 would hereby be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 10, 19 and 25 would also hereby be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2 – 9, 11 – 18, 20 – 24 and 26 – 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kemp (US 2003/0154076 A1) provides teaching for the detecting of a shift in a user emotion leading to selection of a speaker-independent acoustic model to be applied to performing speech recognition [0050].
KOTHARI et al. (US 2020/0312317 A1) provides teaching for applying quality metrics that include word error rates to speech recognition [0040].
Pande et al. (US 2018/0268815 A1) provides teaching for measuring the quality of a keyword through determining a false positive error rate of the keyword at the decoder of an ASR [0005], [0014].
Kemp (US 2003/0154076 A1) provides teaching for improving performance and recognition rate for recognising speech based on deriving the emotional state of a speaker from a speech input (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights