DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to the Appeal Brief filed in this Application on 11/19/2025. Thus, claims 1-20 are currently pending for reconsideration by the Examiner and are examined below. 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.
2. Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being nothing more than an abstract idea. As an example, claim 1 step 1: recites a method (statutory). Step 2A (Prong One) — Judicial exception(s): The claim is directed to an abstract idea that includes mental processes and methods of organizing human activity including determining whether an audio file requires speech recognition (classifying/deciding) — mental process/data classification. Prioritizing items (ranking, organizing tasks based on attributes such as revenue, user category, complexity) — a method of organizing human activity (business practice/administrative ordering). Sending data for processing is a generic transmission step ancillary to the abstract idea. The obtaining of the audio file is merely a pre-solution activity. With regards to step 2A (Prong Two) — Integration into a practical application: The claim recites generic data-handling steps (receive, determine, prioritize, send) and does not recite how these tasks are performed in a specific technical manner (no specialized hardware or unconventional network protocol specified, no particular audio-analysis algorithm with technical parameters). No improvement to the functioning of the computer or speech recognition technology is recited; operations are performed at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B — Inventive concept: Additional elements are generic (audio file receipt, priority-based dispatch); no unconventional combination or specific technical implementation is recited that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept under Alice; claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, for claim 2, step 1: Statutory (method). Step 2A (Prong One) — Judicial exception(s): Creating a fingerprint and comparing it to stored fingerprints is a mathematical/data-processing concept (derivation and comparison of data representations) and can be framed as a mental process or mathematical concept. The comparison and classification based on fingerprints is a data classification/recognition activity (abstract). Step 2A (Prong Two) — Integration: The steps are stated at a high level with no specific fingerprinting algorithm, no detailed signal-processing steps, no specific feature extraction parameters, and no specialized hardware. The claim does not recite how the fingerprint is computed in a technical manner (e.g., frequency domain transforms with specific parameters, hashing method with collision avoidance, etc.) or how the comparison is optimized for speech recognition systems. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B — Inventive concept: The generic recitation of “create fingerprint” and “compare” are conventional data-processing tasks and do not supply significantly more; absent specific technical detail they are routine. Conclusion: Claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept; claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, for claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), step 1: statutory (method). Step 2A (Prong One): Associating stored fingerprints with prior queries is a data organization/record-keeping activity (organizing human activity/mental process). Step 2A (Prong Two): The claim does not recite a technical mechanism or improvement in storage/retrieval (no specialized data structure beyond generic storage association). Therefore, not integrated into a practical application. Step 2B: No inventive concept beyond conventional storage/lookup. Conclusion: Claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept; claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, claim 4 (dependent on claim 2), step 1: statutory (method). Step 2A (Prong One): Random sampling for fingerprint creation is a data-sampling/selection technique — an abstract data-processing concept mathematical/statistical). Step 2A (Prong Two): Claim lacks specific technical details on sampling algorithm, sampling rate, error bounds, or how sampling impacts recognition accuracy via a technical mechanism. It merely recites sampling/random selection generically. Step 2B: Random sampling as recited is a known data handling approach; without technical specificity it is an ordinary data-processing practice. Conclusion: Claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept; claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, for claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), step 1: statutory (method). Step 2A (Prong One): These characteristics are business/administrative metrics used to prioritize tasks — organizing human activity/ business practice (abstract). Step 2A (Prong Two): No technical means are recited that transform the business metric into a technical improvement; characteristics are used at a high level to rank/prioritize. Step 2B: No inventive technical means are recited to compute/derive these metrics in a novel way. Conclusion: Claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept; claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Similarly, for claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), step 1: statutory (method). Step 2A (Prong One): Generating a response to a recognized query is an abstract idea relating to processing information and responding (mental process/functional result). Step 2A (Prong Two): Claim does not recite any specific technical method of response generation (e.g., a novel NLU architecture, an improved TTS engine with defined signal processing improvements). Step 2B: No technical inventive concept beyond generic generation of a response. Conclusion: Claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept; claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 8-13 are computer readable medium (CRM) claims corresponding to method claims 1-6 and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the reasons outlined above. Further, claims 15-19 are system claims corresponding to the method claims 1-16 and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the reasons outlined above.
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 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.
3. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyr (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2003/0105623 A1) in view of Kamvar (U.S. Patent # 9031216 B1).
With regards to claim 1, Cyr teaches a method comprising receiving an audio file (Para 22, teaches receiving speech files);
determining, based on a characteristic associated with the audio file, that the audio file requires speech recognition processing to recognize the voice query (Paragraphs 62-65, teach that user data includes author, context, priority, and identification as to whether dictation is to be used for speech recognition or manual transcription);
prioritizing, based on at least one other characteristic of the audio file, the audio file relative to other audio files that require speech recognition processing (Paragraphs 28-30, teach that he dynamic monitoring agent and dispatch system work together to insert new jobs into appropriate queues of the speech recognition engines, submit the work based upon priority and bump the priority level up when a job has been sitting around too long. Paragraphs 62-65, teach that user data includes author, context, priority, and identification as to whether dictation is to be used for speech recognition or manual transcription. The user data also includes an acoustic profile of the user. A speech recognition engine wrapper keeps jobs in a queue in order of priority. If a new job is accepted, it will be put at the end of the queue for its priority);
and sending, based on the priority of the audio file, the audio file for speech recognition processing to recognize the voice query (Paragraphs 28-30, teach that the dispatch system and dynamic monitoring agent work in conjunction to ensure that speech files are sent to the variety of available speech recognition engines in a manner which optimizes operation of the entire system);
Cyr may not explicitly detail that said speech files contain a voice query. This is taught by Kamvar (Col. 19, line 63 to col. 20, line 24, teach a voice query input by a user over a telephone connection. An audio file of this query is submitted to a Voice Server for speech recognition);
Cyr and Kamvar can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in speech processing. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Kamvar (Use of audio files for voice query processing) with those of Cyr (Use of speech files for a distributed speech recognition system) as it is a very routine design choice that a person with ordinary skill in the art would make to extend the application of the distributed speech recognition system of Cyr to voiced queries as outlined in Kamvar.
With regards to claim 8, this is a CRM claim for the corresponding method claim 1. These two claims are related as method and CRM of using the same, with each claimed CRM element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 8 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
With regards to claims 15, this is a system claim for the corresponding method claim 1. These two claims are related as method and system of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
4. Claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyr in view of Kamvar and further in view of Mallinson (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0013314 A1).
With regards to claim 2, Cyr and Kamvar may not explicitly detail the limitation wherein determining that the audio file requires speech recognition processing to recognize the voice query further comprises creating an audio fingerprint of the audio file and comparing the created audio fingerprint to one or more stored audio fingerprints. This is taught by Mallinson (Para 25 and figure 3, teach that an audio fingerprinting process is used to compare audio information captured by the user with audio information stored in the database);
Cyr, Kamvar and Mallinson can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in speech processing. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Kamvar and Cyr with those of Mallinson (Use of audio finger print comparison) for identifying, locating, and/or accessing supplemental content or relevant information pertaining to the speech signals of Cyr and Kamvar (Mallinson, para 4).
With regards to claim 3, Cyr and Kamvar may not explicitly detail the limitation wherein the one or more stored audio fingerprints are associated with one or more previously received voice queries. This is again taught by Mallinson (Para 35, teaches that the system can first compare a segment with information in the appropriate database to determine whether if the same, or a substantially similar, segment has previously been identified);
Cyr, Kamvar and Mallinson can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in speech processing. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Kamvar and Cyr with those of Mallinson (Use of audio finger print comparison) for identifying, locating, and/or accessing supplemental content or relevant information pertaining to the speech signals of Cyr and Kamvar (Mallinson, para 4).
With regards to claim 4, Cyr and Kamvar may not explicitly detail the limitation wherein creating the audio fingerprint of the audio file further comprises creating the audio fingerprint of a randomly selected portion of the audio file or a sampling of the audio file. This is once again taught by Mallinson (Para 21, teaches that a microphone or other such media capturing element can periodically, continually, or at selected times sample or capture the audio of the broadcast);
Cyr, Kamvar and Mallinson can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in speech processing. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Kamvar and Cyr with those of Mallinson (Use of audio finger print comparison) for identifying, locating, and/or accessing supplemental content or relevant information pertaining to the speech signals of Cyr and Kamvar (Mallinson, para 4).
With regards to claim 5, Cyr and Kamvar may not explicitly detail the limitation wherein the other characteristic is at least one of a potential revenue associated with the audio file, a category of a user associated with the audio file, or an indication of a complexity of the audio file. This aspect is once again taught by Mallinson (Para 27 and figure 3, teach that the second type of audio files, i.e., for which no match in found via audio fingerprinting, are ranked by a confidence level or score. Further, the threshold of the confidence level or score can be increased or decreased to find a match, e.g., longer and shorter version of the same commercial. These files are then further processed by the increased or decreased threshold of confidence level/score);
Cyr, Kamvar and Mallinson can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in speech processing. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Kamvar and Cyr with those of Mallinson (Use of audio finger print comparison) for identifying, locating, and/or accessing supplemental content or relevant information pertaining to the speech signals of Cyr and Kamvar (Mallinson, para 4).
27102005.023860
With regards to claim 6, Cyr and Kamvar may not explicitly detail the limitation of generating a response to the associated voice query of the audio file. This aspect is once again taught by Mallinson (Para 26 and figure 3, further teach that files in which matched is found based on audio fingerprinting can return the results to the user as supplemental content);
Cyr, Kamvar and Mallinson can be considered as analogous art as they belong to a similar field of endeavor in speech processing. It would thus have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to advantageously combine the teachings of Kamvar and Cyr with those of Mallinson (Use of audio finger print comparison) for identifying, locating, and/or accessing supplemental content or relevant information pertaining to the speech signals of Cyr and Kamvar (Mallinson, para 4).
With regards to claims 9-13, these are computer readable medium (CRM) claims for the corresponding method claims 2-6. These two sets of claims are related as method and CRM of using the same, with each claimed CRM element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 9-13 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 2-6.
With regards to claims 16-19, these are system claims for the corresponding method claims 2-5. These two sets of claims are related as method and system of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 16-19 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 2-5.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 7, 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not currently suggest or teach the invention as outlined in these claims. More detailed reasons for allowance will be outlined as and when the Application goes to allowability.
Conclusion
6. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Agnihotri (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2008/0221942 A1), Hedin (U.S. Patent # 6185535 B1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
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. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)