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 7-11 and 14-18 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 pairing transcripts, 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 the audio signal representing the spoken sequence of utterances (can be done by listening to a user speak); identifying one of the utterances as the target utterance to be classified (can be done by a user determining what is being spoken); defining an utterance pair for processing, the utterance pair comprising the target utterance paired with another one of the utterances (can be done by a user defining an utterance); processing the utterance pair to generate a prediction of the target utterance (can be done by a user making a prediction regarding the data); and providing the prediction as an output (can be done by a user outputting the data). Furthermore, receiving a spoken conversation between at least two persons and configured for recording the conversation, the recorded conversation comprising a spoken sequence of utterances (can be done by a user listening to someone speak); a speech to text service configured for transcribing the spoken sequence of utterances (can be done by a user transcribing the data); identifying one of the transcribed utterances as a target utterance to be classified and defining an utterance pair for processing, the utterance pair comprising the target utterance paired with another one of the transcribed utterances (can be done by a user identifying specific data); and processing the utterance pair to generate a prediction of the target utterance and providing the prediction as an output (can be done by a user making a prediction and outputting the data). 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 which is non-statutory and mental processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “rolling sequence” is not defined.
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, 5-7, 11-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biadsy et al. (PGPUB 2024/0021190), hereinafter referenced as Biadsy.
Regarding claims 1, 12-13 and 19-20, Biadsy discloses a computer-implemented method and system, hereinafter referenced as a method for training a machine learning model, comprising:
receiving an audio signal representing a spoken sequence of utterances (speech samples; p. 0057-0058);
identifying one of the utterances as a target utterance to be transcribed (target utterance to be transcribed; p. 0057-0058, 0060, 0064)
defining an utterance pair for processing, the utterance pair comprising the target utterance paired with another one of the utterances (pairing; p. 0057, 0067-0068);
processing the utterance pair with the machine-learned model (machine learning) to generate a prediction of the target utterance (predicted speech; p. 0004, 0010, 0064);
evaluating a loss function (loss) that compares the prediction to a ground truth value (ground truth; p. 0010, 0064); and
modifying one or more values of at least one parameter of the machine-learned model based at least in part on the evaluated loss function (adjust parameters; p. 0058, 0064).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 18, Biadsy discloses a method further comprising executing a speech to text algorithm configured to transcribe the spoken sequence of utterances, and wherein the utterance pair for processing is defined from the transcribed sequence of utterances (transcribe utterances; p. 0039, 0057).
Regarding claim 6, Biadsy discloses a method further comprising providing the prediction as an output (predicted result; p. 0004, 0034, 0042, 0053, 0064).
Regarding claim 7, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth in the combination of claims 1 and 6. In addition, Biadsy discloses one or more processors (p. 0080);
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing a machine-learned model for classifying the target utterance and computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (p. 0081) and identifying one of the utterances as the target utterance to be classified (labeled speech; p. 0057-0058).
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) 2-3, 8-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biadsy in view of Kobayashi et al. (PBPUB 2022/0164545), hereinafter referenced as Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 15, Biadsy discloses a method as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein the utterance paired with the target utterance immediately precedes the target utterance in the sequence of utterances.
Kobayashi discloses a method wherein the utterance paired with the target utterance immediately precedes the target utterance in the sequence of utterances (p. 0028), to assist with understanding intent and generating responses.
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 accurately estimating a dialog.
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 16, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Kobayashi discloses a method wherein the utterance paired with the target utterance immediately follows the target utterance in the sequence of utterances (after; p. 0048-0052).
Claim(s) 4, 10, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biadsy in view of Wu et al. (PGPUB 2021/0174798), hereinafter referenced as Wu.
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 17, Biadsy discloses a method as described above, but does not specifically teach a method further comprising repeatedly processing the utterance pair to create a rolling sequence of utterance pairs, the rolling sequence of utterance pairs comprising:
(u.sub.0,u.sub.1),(u.sub.1,u.sub.2), . . . (u.sub.n-1,u.sub.n).
Wu discloses a method comprising repeatedly processing the utterance pair to create a rolling sequence of utterance pairs, the rolling sequence of utterance pairs comprising:
(u.sub.0,u.sub.1),(u.sub.1,u.sub.2), . . . (u.sub.n-1,u.sub.n) (p. 0032, 0085), to assist with predicting accurate 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 improve accuracy
Regarding claim 14, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Biadsy discloses a machine-learned transcription system comprising:
a spoken sequence of utterances (speech samples; p. 0057-0058);
a speech to text service configured for transcribing the spoken sequence of utterances (utterance to be transcribed; p. 0057-0058, 0060, 0064);
a data builder service configured for identifying one of the transcribed utterances as a target utterance to be classified and defining an utterance pair for processing (labeled speech; p. 0057-0058), the utterance pair comprising the target utterance paired with another one of the transcribed utterances (pairing; p. 0057, 0067-0068); and
a machine learning (ML) engine configured for processing the utterance pair with a machine-learned model (machine learning) to generate a prediction of the target utterance and providing the prediction as an output (predicted speech; p. 0004, 0010, 0034, 0042, 0053, 0064). In addition, Wu discloses a telephony services receiving a spoken conversation between at least two persons and configured for recording the conversation (p. 0032-0033).
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).
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