DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 , and 21-23 are pending and claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendment of the allowed claims 1, 8 and 15, filed on 08/26/2026, have been considered but they are not persuasive. Thus, the allowance has been withdrawn (Arguments, page 8).
Specifically, Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 15 to remove recitations directed to applying a digital audio input to the language-specific ASR model to obtain a transcript while retaining recitations from then-dependent claims that were previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter. The removed recitations have been retained in new dependent claims 21-23 (Arguments, page 8).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because of the removed recitations directed to applying a digital audio input to the language-specific ASR model to obtain a transcript while retaining recitations from then-dependent claims that were previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter, this has triggered a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The reason why the claims 1, 8 and 15 were not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the previous version of the claims was because of the “applying a digital audio input to the language-specific ASR model…” limitation. The rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 and the other associated claims is indicated below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection section.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments of claims with minor antecedent issues, filed on 08/26/2026, has been considered and are persuasive (Arguments, page 9).
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “accessing … generating … removing… generating … removed” as drafted cover an abstract idea of data analysis/retrieval and mental steps. More specifically, the “accessing a multilingual … model comprising a token embedding matrix corresponding to a plurality of language tokens, wherein the plurality of language tokens comprises at least (a) a first subset of language tokens associated with a first language and (b) a second subset of language tokens associated with a second language; generating a language-specific ASR model for the first language, at least by: retaining, from the multilingual ASR model, a first portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to the first subset of language tokens associated with the first language; removing, from the multilingual ASR model, a second portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to the second subset of language tokens associated with the second language; wherein generating the language-specific ASR model for the first language further comprises defining a classification layer of the language-specific ASR model according to an adjusted classification layer of the multilingual ASR model that is adjusted based on having the second subset of language tokens removed” which requires just data analysis / retrieval step and mental process. For instance, one can access a multilingual … model comprising a token embedding matrix corresponding to a plurality of language tokens, generate a language-specific … model for the first language, retain from a first portion of the token embedding matrix, remove a second portion of the token embedding matrix. The step “generating the language-specific ASR model for the first language further comprises defining a classification layer of the language-specific ASR model according to an adjusted classification layer of the multilingual ASR model that is adjusted based on having the second subset of language tokens removed” can be performed with pen/paper instead of the multilingual ASR model is not used. A person can perform these steps mentally or via pen/paper to customize what should be included in the model. The claimed invention is, therefore, directed to an abstract idea and a mental process without significantly more and thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similarly, the dependent claims 2-5, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 recite similar claim language as in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of wherein the first subset of language tokens associated with the first language comprises tokens associated with a particular language script,” which requires just a mental step of associating the first subset of language tokens with the first language that comprises tokens associated with a particular language script. The recited “non-transitory computer-readable media” in the claims is just an additional element. Thus, these claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 which recite “generating the language-specific ASR model further comprises: retaining, from the multilingual ASR model, a third portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to numerical characters,” which also requires just a mental step. A person can mentally or using pen and paper retain a third portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to numerical characters. Thus, claims 3, 10 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 which recite “generating the language-specific ASR model further comprises: retaining, from the multilingual ASR model, a third portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to special characters used to direct operation of the multilingual ASR model,” which also requires just a mental process. A person can mentally or using pen and paper retain a third portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to special characters used to direct operation of the multilingual ASR model. Thus, claims 4, 11 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 which recite “identifying the first subset of language tokens associated with the first language, at least by tokenizing a corpus of text written in the first language,” which also requires just a simple mental process or step. A person can mentally identify the first subset of language tokens associated with the first language, at least by tokenizing a corpus of text written in the first language. Thus, claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 14 which recite “identifying the second subset of language tokens as tokens having a token reading direction different from a reading direction of the first language,” which also requires just a mental step. A person can mentally performed the step of identifying the second subset of language tokens as tokens having a token reading direction different from a reading direction of the first language. Thus, claims 7 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 as drafted cover a mental process and abstract idea of data gathering/retrieval and analysis/processing steps, and they are mental processes directed to an abstract idea of implementing mathematical formulae for data processing and data analysis using a conventional/generic (general-purpose) computer as well and thus, all the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an additional element of “processor” as per the independent claims. Claims 1-8 recite “non-transitory computer-readable media” which is just an additional element. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional general purpose computer implementation. Merely adding a generic, general-purpose computer to automate an unpatentable concept does not make that concept patentable. This is the foundational case governing generalized computers. The Supreme Court established a strict two-step framework for patent eligibility. Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly ruled that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.” To be patentable, an invention must do more than say "apply an abstract idea using a computer" (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)).Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are therefore not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and a mental process without significantly more and thus, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer as noted. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 are also directed toward an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 do not contain patent eligible subject matter that has been identified by the courts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reasons for allowance are that the prior art of record do not specifically teach the limitations as recited in the claims mentioned.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19would be allowable if rewritten, especially if the independent claims are rewritten and overcome the 101 rejections. The reasons for allowance are that the prior art of record do not specifically teach the limitations as recited in the claims mentioned. The closest references to this application are the two references Wu et al. Pat App No. US 20250022457 A1 (Wu) and Mavandadi et al., "A Truly Multilingual First Pass and Monolingual Second Pass Streaming on-Device ASR System," 2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), Doha, Qatar, 2023, pp. 838-845 (Year: 2022). The presented claims, filed on 08/26/2026, are allowable over the prior art of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fail to particularly disclose, inter alia, “accessing a multilingual automatic speech recognition (ASR) model comprising a token embedding matrix corresponding to a plurality of language tokens, wherein the plurality of language tokens comprises at least (a) a first subset of language tokens associated with a first language and (b) a second subset of language tokens associated with a second language; generating a language-specific ASR model for the first language, at least by: retaining, from the multilingual ASR model, a first portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to the first subset of language tokens associated with the first language; removing, from the multilingual ASR model, a second portion of the token embedding matrix corresponding to the second subset of language tokens associated with the second language; wherein generating the language-specific ASR model for the first language further comprises defining a classification layer of the language-specific ASR model according to an adjusted classification layer of the multilingual ASR model that is adjusted based on having the second subset of language tokens removed.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA T. DUGDA whose telephone number is (703)756-1106. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 4:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Paras D. Shah can be reached at 571-270-1650. 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.
/MULUGETA TUJI DUGDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights