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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on March 8, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced. The claim(s) does/do not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced. The claim is drawn to process/system (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’.
The claim does not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine. The method does not require a particular transformation of a particular article. There is not transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced is similar to delivering user-selected media content to a portable device found by the courts to be abstract idea (Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and also displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recites the result (determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced, along with a generic processor and machine learning algorithm”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using computing device as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements—processor—“merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic processor and machine learning algorithm. The claim amounts to no more than determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing processor-based determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using processor device and machine learning algorithm, well- understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of determining pronunciation, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as extract spectral features; spectral features includes formant; machine learning algorithm is selected from the known group; even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-20, are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou et al. (US 2021/0361227).
As per claim 1, Chou discloses, a system for providing real-time detection and analysis of speech sounds, comprising:
an input configured to receive an electronic audio file containing a target speech sound (Paragraph 0024, claimed “electronic audio file” is “patient audio recording”); and
a processor coupled to the input and programmed with a machine learning algorithm that has been trained with a predetermined data set to determine whether the target speech sound in the electronic audio file has been accurately pronounced and to output a signal reflecting the determination whether the target speech sound was accurately pronounced (Paragraphs 0024 and 0027, claimed features reads on “machine-learned models”, “The resulting comparison can be indicative of the patient's ability to intelligibly enunciate specific syllables or phonemes contained in the words of the predetermined text string. As another example, the sound description data can describe a lack of expected sounds (e.g., words, non-word sounds”).
As per claim 2, Chou discloses, wherein the processor is further programmed to receive an audio file containing the target speech sound (Paragraph 0027).
As per claim 3, Chou discloses, wherein the processor is further programmed to locate the target speech sound within the audio file.
As per claim 4, Chou discloses, wherein the processor is further programmed to extract a plurality of spectral features of the target speech sound (Paragraph 0036).
As per claims 12-14, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-4, because corresponding claims have similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 15-16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US 2021/0361227) as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Fuchs et al. (US 2016/0307576).
As per claims 4-5, and 14-15, Chou does not explicitly disclose, but Fuchs disclose,
-wherein the plurality of spectral features includes at least one formant (Abstract).
-wherein the plurality of spectral features includes at least one inter-formant distance (Abstract and Paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou by including formant and inter-formant distance as taught by Fuchs for the advantage of measuring the speech quality.
As per claim 17, Chou discloses, wherein the machine learning algorithm is selected from the group consisting of a bidirectional long short-term memory recurrent neural network, convolutional neural networks, transformer neural networks, attention mechanisms, encoder/decoder neural networks, and temporal convolutional neural networks (Paragraph 0024).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US 2021/0361227) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Well-known prior art.
As per claim 18, Chou does not explicitly disclose, wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises more than one algorithm selected from the group consisting of a bidirectional long short-term memory recurrent neural network, convolutional neural networks, transformer neural networks, attention mechanisms, encoder/decoder neural networks, and temporal convolutional neural networks. Official Notice is taken on well-known feature of using more than one algorithm from the well-known neural network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou by including more than one neural network because all the claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
“common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.-,82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
As per claim 19, Chou discloses, further comprising the step of performing feature selection of the plurality of spectral features to reduce a number of independent variables (Paragraph 0036).
As per claim 20, Chou dos not explicitly disclose, wherein the predetermined data set includes a series of desired sound tokens from speakers having difference ages and different sexes. Chou discloses in paragraph 0024, different sound models. It is well-known in the art sound models are different based on ages and sexes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chou by including different sound model based on ages and sexes because all the claimed elements were known in the art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
“common sense teaches, however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S.-,82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zigel et al. (US 11,344,225) discloses, determining apnea-hypopnea index AHI from speech.
Knoth et al. (US 10,478,111) discloses, systems for speech-based assessment of a patient’s state-of-mind.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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).
November 10, 2025
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656