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 .
Claims 1-6,9-15,17,20,22-23 and 28-30 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered and attached by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “non-transitoey” and “readave” is spelled incorrectly. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6,9-15,17,20,22-23 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 the limitations of “obtaining a mask for mask-based speech enhancement of the audio signal; obtaining a magnitude of the audio signal; determining an estimate of residual (speech signal) noise in the audio signal after mask-based speech enhancement, based on the mask and the magnitude of the audio signal; identifying the one or more speech segments in the audio signal; and determining a modified mask based on the estimate of the residual noise and the identified one or more speech segments in the audio signal by: determining an averaged residual mask based on the estimate of the residual noise, applying an average over time; and selecting, for each of a plurality of time-frequency bins or time bins and frequency bands, one of the mask and the averaged residual mask as the modified mask, wherein the averaged residual mask is selected as the modified mask when the mask is smaller than the averaged residual mask, and wherein the mask is selected as the modified mask when the mask is larger than or equal to the averaged residual mask”, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of data gathering steps and steps that involve mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the –Mathematical Concepts-- grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recitation of an apparatus in claim 29 and computer readable medium in claims 30, reads to generalized computer components. 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. Additionally, the data gathering steps or steps involving mathematical calculations or relationships does not involve steps that would demonstrate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The primary application described in the specification disclosure is “speech enhancement”. Spec. P0002. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 generalized computer components to implement a series of data gathering steps and steps that involve mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships 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.
With respect to claim 2-6, 9-15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 29, and 30 the claims recite steps of mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships. No additional limitations are present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is 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 claims.
Claims 1-6,9-15,17,20,22-23 and 28-30 are rejected by 35 USC § 101 as an abstract idea. However, the claims would be allowable if the claims are rewritten to overcome the abstract idea rejection.
None of the prior art either alone or in combination, teaches or makes obvious the combination of the claim limitation of “determining an estimate of residual (speech signal) noise in the audio signal after mask-based speech enhancement”, “identifying the one or more speech segments in the audio signal”, “determining a modified mask based on the estimate of the residual noise and the identified one or more speech segments”, “determining an averaged residual mask based on the estimate of the residual noise”, and selecting, for each time-frequency bin, the mask or averaged residual mask as the modified mask based on whichever is larger.
Prior art reference Yang et al (U.S. PG Pub No. 20250131941) teaches noise reduction performed by the spectral temporal amplitude enhancer that performs a series of steps, including reverberation and noise filtering, residual noise estimation, and residual noise suppression in the modulation frequency domain, to convert the initial spectral temporal amplitude data to enhanced spectral temporal amplitude data. Yang, however, does not teach the combination of the claim limitation of “determining an estimate of residual (speech signal) noise in the audio signal after mask-based speech enhancement”, “identifying the one or more speech segments in the audio signal”, “determining a modified mask based on the estimate of the residual noise and the identified one or more speech segments”, “determining an averaged residual mask based on the estimate of the residual noise”, and selecting, for each time-frequency bin, the mask or averaged residual mask as the modified mask based on whichever is larger.
Prior art reference Guo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9536537) teaches a noise suppression module that may suppress noise in the noisy speech signal where the resulting noise-suppressed speech signal may still include some residual noise and/or may include a damaged speech signal as a result of the noise suppression. Guo further teaches a residual noise cleanup module that may remove one or more non-speech peaks the noise-suppressed speech signal. Guo, however, does not teach the combination of the claim limitation of “determining an estimate of residual (speech signal) noise in the audio signal after mask-based speech enhancement”, “identifying the one or more speech segments in the audio signal”, “determining a modified mask based on the estimate of the residual noise and the identified one or more speech segments”, “determining an averaged residual mask based on the estimate of the residual noise”, and selecting, for each time-frequency bin, the mask or averaged residual mask as the modified mask based on whichever is larger.
Prior art reference Every et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8521530) teaches the generation of a preliminary mask by the mask module that is subsequently used by the modifier/reconstructor module to optimize subsequent pitch estimation performance. Every, however, does not teach the combination of the claim limitation of “determining an estimate of residual (speech signal) noise in the audio signal after mask-based speech enhancement”, “identifying the one or more speech segments in the audio signal”, “determining a modified mask based on the estimate of the residual noise and the identified one or more speech segments”, “determining an averaged residual mask based on the estimate of the residual noise”, and selecting, for each time-frequency bin, the mask or averaged residual mask as the modified mask based on whichever is larger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL WONSUK CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7am-4pm)[PT].
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, PIERRE-LOUIS DESIR can be reached at (571)272-7799. 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.
/DANIEL W CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights