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 April 21, 2026, applicant submitted an amendment filed on July 13, 2006, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that inputting data, processing speech data and outputting a speech recognition result of the speech data is not mental processing. However, those steps can merely be a conversation and outputting what is heard. Furthermore, it is explained that the amended claims are integrated into the practical application of an improvement to a technical field of speech recognition. The claims do not expressly recite any specific, non-generic improvements to computing or device operation such as particular signal-processing algorithms, concrete hardware implementations, novel low-latency arbitration protocols, specialized microphone-array processing, or particular network protocols that solve a technical problem. Instead, the claim uses conventional computer/device components and generic functional language to implement the abstract idea. The mere use of generic devices (playback devices) and routine networked communications to perform the abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. The Applicant’s specification, as of record, does not provide persuasive disclosure of a specific technical improvement (e.g., concrete signal-processing steps, specialized arbitration protocol with technical detail and behavior, or hardware architecture that solves a technical problem) sufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept that transforms the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Absent such limiting technical details, the claims read on the abstract speech recognition process implemented on generic playback devices. 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 1-9, 12-14, 16-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, it recites mathematical concepts and mental-process-like steps (probabilities, vector operations and grouping). The specification nor the claims recite an explicit machine/architecture and there is no stated improvement to computer/ASR technology. The claims merely recite analyzing and transforming information to output a transcript. There is no integration into a practical application.
According to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, 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 above, the claims collectively and individually, fall within categories courts and USPTO guidance commonly treat as abstract ideas: mental processes (recognizing/extracting/organizing information), mathematical concepts (mapping text to numerical vectors) and fundamental data-processing/manipulation.
Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. 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 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.
Regarding claim 9, it recites a method for providing a speech recognition service. It contains the same mathematical/data-analysis core. As explained above, the abstract idea is present. Although the claim recites real-time acquisition and recording to a conference record file, it is still without concrete system constraints/architecture or articulated technical improvement, which is similar to collecting, analyzing and/or presenting using generic technology (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.). The claim focuses on collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The claim collects information, which does not change its character as information. The analyzing can be done by steps that goes through one’s mind, or by mathematical algorithms, which is essentially mental processes within the abstract -idea category. Presenting results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information is abstract as an ancillary part of collection and analysis. Here, the claim is clearly focused on the combination of those abstract idea processes. It is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Regarding step 2B, the present claims present no unconventional elements.
Regarding claim 12, it recites a speech recognition model. The “model” seems to read as an intangible algorithm/data structure (non-statutory). The claim is drawn to a “program” per se as recited in the preamble and as such is/are non-statutory subject matter. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. If the claims were framed as a “machine/system” implemented by processors/memory or as a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” storing the trained model/instructions, it satisfies Step 1 (similar to dependent claim 14).
Furthermore, it is noted that a few of the dependent claims recite training a decoder, however, the claims do not explicitly recite how the trained data is used for a particular purpose. The claims are presented at a high level and do not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific, unconventional improvement in computer or vehicle technology. The claims do not recite a particular hardware architecture, specialized data structures, concrete signal-processing steps, defined latency or safety constraints, or a specific machine-learning architecture or training regime that produces a technological improvement. The mere mention of training is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
The remaining dependent claims recite similar language, including mathematical concepts and mental-process-like steps (probabilities, vector operations and grouping), which is non-statutory, as explained above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights