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 May 6, 2026, applicants submitted an amendment filed on July 29, 2026, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amended the claims and explained that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind as they require computational processing. Applicants amended the claims and explained that the claims as amended clarify the specific technological features of ASR and closely align the claims with the ASR architecture and processing operations, by improving latency and operation of the ASR through look ahead acousto-linguistic processing integrated with decoder operation. However, the claim does 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 a computing system 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 detail, the claim reads on the abstract processing.
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 13-14 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 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), wherein the quantity of the one or more look-ahead words is reduced by the decoder when the audio is associated with real-time transcription processing relative to prerecorded audio processing (can be done by a user deciding how long to wait before starting to transcribe).
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 claim 14 teaches that the audio is a stream of natural language audio, which is non-statutory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 15-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowance:
As for independent claims 1 and 15-16, they recite a method and system for segmenting audio. Prior art such of record discloses a similar method and system but fails to teach the claims in combination with evaluating the acoustic segmentation score against an acoustic segmentation score threshold and evaluating the language segmentation score against a language segmentation score threshold and the computing system refraining from generating the segment break at the potential segmentation boundary in the audio when it is determined that either the acoustic segmentation score fails to meet or exceed the acoustic segmentation score threshold, or the language segmentation score fails to meet or exceed the language segmentation score threshold, or alternatively, 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. While Maas discloses a decoder to recognize speech utterances, identifying potential segmentation boundaries, decoding hypotheses to detect potential sentence ends using future words and generating an acoustic segmentation score and a language segmentation score associated with the potential segmentation boundary, it does not teach the specific threshold, instead outputs the combination of acoustic model score and language models score via a classification layer.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-12 and 17-21 are allowed because they further limit their parent claims.
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).
Tundik “A low latency sequential model and its user-focused evaluation for automatic punctions of ASR closed captions”, tables 3, 4, 7, and 8 describe an offline mode where the MaxEnt model has a lookahead of six words and an online mode where the model has a lookahead of just one word.
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