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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed December 18, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on March 18, 2026, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
The 101 rejection remains for reasons as set forth below. In addition, according to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method and apparatus, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained below, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained below the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s argue Step 2A Prong 2 and provides examples of limitations that the courts have found indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception into a practical application. The instant claims do not provide a solution to problems, thereby integrating the exception into a practical application by providing an improvement to a technical field. The steps do not lead to an improvement. Therefore, Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of speech recognition, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, receiving an audio signal including a user voice input (can be done by listening to a user speak), obtaining a first text from the user voice input that is received by performing a first voice recognition based on a first language (can be done by a user transcribing what was spoken), based on a segment, in the audio signal including the user voice input being unrecognizable by the first voice recognition, obtaining a second text from the segment by performing a second voice recognition based on a second language (can be done by a user recognizing the part of the speech spoken is not recognizable due to a language switch and transcribing the data in a second language) and providing a voice recognition result corresponding to the user voice input based on the first text and the second text (can be done by providing a result based on the voice and text). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as displaying the recognition results, obtaining words, determining unrecognized data, performing recognition results, identifying data and obtaining text data based on certain requirements, which is all non-statutory and mental processing.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duong et al. (PGPUB 2018/0307679), hereinafter referenced as Duong.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Duong discloses an electronic apparatus and method, hereinafter referenced as an apparatus comprising:
a processor (p. 0027-0028) configured to:
receive an audio signal including a user voice input (receive a natural language utterance; p. 0012, 0024, 0051, 0055),
obtain a first text from the user voice input that is received by performing a first voice recognition based on a first language (text transcription of the utterance; p. 0012)
based on a segment (parsing), in the audio signal including the user voice input being unrecognizable (language not defined; p. 0021-0022) by the first voice recognition, obtain a second text from the segment by performing a second voice recognition based on a second language (multi-lingual parser; p. 0011-0012, 0022-0024, 0051-0055, 0062), and
provide a voice recognition result corresponding to the user voice input based on the first text and the second text (providing results; p. 0055).
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) 2-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong in view of Willett et al. (PGPUB 2018/0197545), hereinafter referenced as Willett.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Duong discloses an apparatus as described above, but does not specifically teach controlling the display.
Willet discloses an apparatus further comprising:
a display (fig. 1, element 118);
wherein the processor is configured to:
control the display to display the voice recognition result (provide text ASR results to the user via display on a user interface; p. 0027-0035), to assist with accurately recognizing data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist with handling multilingual data accurately to parse the text and determine the different languages.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, t is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus as described above, but does not specifically teach controlling the display to display the first text and the second text.
Willett discloses an apparatus further comprising:
a display (fig. 1, element 118):
wherein the processor is configured to:
control the display to display the first text and the second text (provide text ASR results to the user via display on a user interface; p. 0027-0035).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus
wherein the first text corresponds to the first language (text of first language; p. 0027-0035), and
wherein the second text corresponds to the second language (text of second language; p. 0027-0035).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a predetermined word from the first text based on the first language (first language; p. 0029-0036),
based on an entity name being unrecognizable in the first text by performing the first voice recognition based on the first language (mismatch), obtain the entity name from the second text by performing the second voice recognition based on the second language (category of the second text; p. 0030-0040), and
provide the voice recognition result corresponding to the user voice input based on the predetermined word and the entity name (provide combined ASR result; fig. 2 element, 222 with p. 0027-0040).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to:
based the entity name being unrecognizable (mismatch) by performing the first voice recognition based on the first language, identify the segment in the user voice input in which the entity name is included (category of the voice; p. 0027-0040), and
obtain the second text based on the segment (second text; p. 0027-0040).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to, based on a predetermined word being included in the first text, identify that the user voice input includes the entity name (voice of the category/song; p. 0027-0036).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus wherein the predetermined word is related to control information for performing a search in association with a content (play), and wherein the entity name is related to a content which is a subject corresponding to a search operation (song name; p. 0027-0036).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus wherein the first voice recognition based on the first language corresponds to a language mode of the first language that is currently set to the electronic apparatus (ASR configured to recognize a first language; p. 0027), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
based on to the second voice recognition based on the second language corresponding to a language mode of the second language different from the language mode of the first language that is currently set, obtain the second text corresponding to the identified segment in the user voice input in which the unrecognizable entity name is included (obtain second text based on mismatch of receiving multilingual utterances of an input speech including multiple languages; p. 0027-0036).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Willett discloses an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to;
identify a portion of the segment that includes the predetermined word in the user voice input and identify a remaining portion of the segment except the identified portion of the segment in the user voice input as the segment in the user voice input in which the entity name is included (identify multilingual utterances operating on a partial ASR result; p. 0037-0039).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657