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 .
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 judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 12 and 17 recite(s):
A method using a computing device to improve intelligibility in an individual with speech dysarthria, the method comprising:
accessing by a computing device recorded speech of an individual with a speech dysarthria condition;
accessing by the computing device a pre-trained language improvement model;
identifying by the pre-trained language improvement model one or more exercises to be performed by the individual with speech dysarthria to improve intelligibility of the individual, the one or more exercises identified by the pre-trained language improvement model based upon an analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model; and
presenting via a digital interface the one or more exercises to be performed by the individual.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computing device”, “digital interface” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a physician applying certain speech model to a patient, diagnose them for a speech disorder and provide the patient with exercise to alleviate the condition of the speech disorder.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” or “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “computing device”, “digital interface”.
The “computing device”, “digital interface” in the aforementioned steps 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, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] 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 element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 26, 32-33).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. For example, claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are directed to the abstract idea of further diagnosing the progression of the dysarthria disease. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon US 20180197439
Claims 1: The Gordon reference provides a teaching of a method using a computing device to improve intelligibility in an individual with speech dysarthria (see abstract and paragraph 22 “the speech disorders or problems can be recognized by the speech enhancement system 1a may include, but are not limited to: CAS, dysarthria …”) , the method comprising:
accessing by a computing device recorded speech of an individual with a speech dysarthria condition (see paragraph 26 “…monitor in real-time and/or record his or her standard, (daily) voice interactions with an I/O device such as an AI listener 10a”);
accessing by the computing device a pre-trained language improvement model (see paragraph 310 feature extraction and speech analyzer);
identifying by the pre-trained language improvement model one or more exercises to be performed by the individual with speech dysarthria to improve intelligibility of the individual, the one or more exercises identified by the pre-trained language improvement model based upon an analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model (see paragraph 42 “suggesting one or more ameliorative actions to correct (or mitigate) the determined speech order (S130) and practicing the one or more ameliorative actions with the patient”); and
presenting via a digital interface the one or more exercises to be performed by the individual (see paragraph 47 display device 5040 and paragraph 24 games to practice treatment plans)
Claim 2: The Gordon reference provides a teaching of wherein the pre-trained language improvement model is a global speech model (see paragraph 20 item 320).
Claim 3 and 13: The Gordon reference provides a teaching of wherein the pre-trained language improvement model is a global speech model personalized to the individual based upon previous speech data collected from the individual (see paragraph 41 model improved using previous clinical data).
Claim 8: The Gordon reference provides a teaching of wherein the pre-trained language improvement model is trained on previous speech data associated with the individual with speech dysarthria (see paragraph 41 model improved using previous clinical data).
Claim 10: The Gordon reference provides a teaching of further comprising after presenting via the digital interface one or more exercises to be performed by the individual, determining by the pre-trained language improvement model whether an improved intelligibility of the individual results after the individual performs the exercises (see paragraph 42 ameliorative actions to correct (or mitigate) the determined speech disorder).
Claims 12 and 17: The Gordon reference provides a teaching of a computer system to improve intelligibility in an individual with speech dysarthria (see abstract, paragraph 35), the computer system comprising:
one or more computer processors (see paragraph 51 item 5010);
one or more computer-readable storage media (see paragraph 49);
program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to access recorded speech of an individual with a speech dysarthria condition (see paragraph 26 “…monitor in real-time and/or record his or her standard, (daily) voice interactions with an I/O device such as an AI listener 10a”);
program instructions to access a pre-trained language improvement model (see paragraph 22 learning engine model to analyze speech disorder);
program instructions to identify by the pre-trained language improvement model one or more exercises to be performed by the individual with speech dysarthria to improve intelligibility of the individual, the one or more exercises identified by the pre-trained language improvement model based upon an analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model (see paragraph 42 “suggesting one or more ameliorative actions to correct (or mitigate) the determined speech order (S130) and practicing the one or more ameliorative actions with the patient”); and
program instructions to present via a digital interface the one or more exercises to be performed by the individual (paragraph 24 games to practice treatment plans).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 4-6, 11, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon US 20180197439 and in view of Song US 20230237928
Claims 4, 14 and 18: However, the Gordon reference is silent on the teaching of assess an intelligibility of the individual after performance of the one or more exercise via an intelligibility assessment model and program instructions to generate by the intelligibility assessment model an intelligibility score for the individual.
However, the Song reference provides a teaching of assess an intelligibility of the individual after performance of the one or more exercise via an intelligibility assessment model (see paragraph 111 score determined after the exercise) and to generate by the intelligibility assessment model an intelligibility score for the individual (see paragraph 95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gordon reference with the feature of assess an intelligibility of the individual after performance of the one or more exercise via an intelligibility assessment model and program instructions to generate by the intelligibility assessment model an intelligibility score for the individual, as taught by the Song reference, in order to better align the user with their training need (see paragraph 62).
Claims 5, 15 and 19: While the combination of Gordon and Song reference provides a teaching of creating an intelligibility score (see the rejection rationale above), the combination is silent on the teaching of “used to track progression disease with the speech dysarthria condition. The examiner notes that this particular limitation is directed to the intended use of the score and does not create a structural difference between prior art combination and the limitation of claim 15. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this particular case, the Song’s disclosure of intelligibility score can be used to track progression disease with the speech dysarthria condition
Claim 6 and 20: The Gordon reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model includes acoustic feature extraction of acoustic components of the recorded speech including selectively one or more of the following: voice stability, noise measurements, and spectral information.
However, the Song reference provides a teaching of wherein the analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model includes acoustic feature extraction of acoustic components of the recorded speech including selectively one or more of the following: spectral information (see paragraph 85).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gordon reference with the feature of wherein the analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model includes acoustic feature extraction of acoustic components of the recorded speech including selectively one or more of the following: voice stability, noise measurements, and spectral information, as taught by the Song reference, in order to better align the user with their training need (see paragraph 62).
Claim 11: The Gordon reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the one or more exercises to be performed by the individual are identified by the pre-trained language improvement model based on an alignment between detected speech degradation and a knowledge base of speech-language pathology therapies or best practices.
However, the Song reference provides a teaching of wherein the one or more exercises to be performed by the individual are identified by the pre-trained language improvement model based on an alignment between detected speech degradation and a knowledge base of speech-language pathology (see paragraph 71 and 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gordon reference with the feature of wherein the one or more exercises to be performed by the individual are identified by the pre-trained language improvement model based on an alignment between detected speech degradation and a knowledge base of speech-language pathology, as taught by the Song reference, in order to better align the user with their training need (see paragraph 62).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon US 20180197439 and in view of Gupta US 7302389
Claim 7 and 16: The Gordon reference is silent on the teaching of wherein the analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model includes feature alignment of recorded speech and identification of changes within recorded speech.
However, the Gupta reference provides a teaching of wherein the analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model includes feature alignment of recorded speech and identification of changes within recorded speech (see paragraph 6:25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Gordon reference with the feature of wherein the analysis of the recorded speech by the pre-trained language improvement model includes feature alignment of recorded speech and identification of changes within recorded speech, as taught by the Gupta reference, in order to provide a more accurate speech recognition system for people experiencing speech disorder (see col. 2:30-40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights