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 1-5 and 7-21 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 segmenting data, 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 “a computer system, a decoder and a punctuator” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing, organizing human activities and mathematical calculations/concepts. For example, the language, obtaining audio, the audio including electronic data comprising natural language (can be done by a user listening to audio data or listening to someone speak), processing the audio to recognize speech utterances included in the audio (can be done by a user understanding and processing the data), identifying a potential segmentation boundary within the speech utterances, the potential segmentation boundary occurring after a beginning of the audio (can be done by a user recognizing a pause or break in the speech data), identifying one or more look-ahead words to use in the audio, the one or more look-ahead words occurring in the audio subsequent to the potential segmentation boundary, the one or more look-ahead words being identified for use in evaluating whether to generate a segment break in the audio at the potential segmentation boundary (can be done by a user identifying and making evaluations regarding the data), generating an acoustic segmentation score and a language segmentation score associated with the potential segmentation boundary (can be done by scoring the data), evaluating the acoustic segmentation score against an acoustic segmentation score threshold and evaluating the language segmentation score against a language segmentation score threshold (can be done by a user evaluating data) and (a) refraining from generating the segment break at the potential segmentation boundary in the audio when it is determined that either (i) the acoustic segmentation score fails to meet or exceed the acoustic segmentation score threshold, or (ii) the language segmentation score fails to meet or exceed the language segmentation score threshold (can be done by a user not segmenting the data based on a determination), or alternatively, (b) generating the segment break at the potential segmentation boundary in the audio when it is determined that at least the language segmentation score meets or exceeds the language segmentation score threshold (can be done by a user segmenting the data based on a determination). Similarly, obtaining electronic data comprising the audio (can be done by a user listening to someone speak); identifying at least one of a type or a context associated with the audio (can be done by a user identifying context associated with the audio) and determining a quantity of one or more look-ahead words included in the audio to later utilize when determining whether to generate a segment break in the audio at a potential segmentation boundary based on at least one of the type or the context associated with the audio, wherein the one or more look-ahead words are positioned sequentially after the potential segmentation boundary within the audio (can be done by a user making a determination and organizing the data based on evaluating the data heard).
The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing, organizing human and mathematical calculations/concept, grouping of abstract ideas and recites generic computer components.
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.
As explained above, 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, the claims fit into the mental processing, organizing human activity and mathematical calculation grouping. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained 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 (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. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
The dependent claims recite similar language, such as recognizing new speech utterances, identifying potential segmentation boundaries, calculating data, using the segment break to generate a segment and generating punctuation mark, which is all part of the mental processing/organizing human activity category and mathematical concepts and is non-statutory.
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
Prosecution Insights