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
2. In response to the office action mailed on 03/13/2026, applicant filed an amendment on 08/18/2026, amending claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15. The pending claims are 1-20.
Response to Arguments
3. With regard to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the steps of “receiving digitized speech audio processed into mel filter bank bin values” and “producing, via an acoustic model, a phoneme sequence based on the digitized speech audio values” cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant asserts that the claimed steps are operations rooted in digital signal processing and machine computation.
The examiner notes that “receiving digitized speech audio processed into mel filter bank bin values” is a mere data gathering, and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is about receiving data corresponding to digitized speech audio and a human can receive any type of data. Digitizing and mel filtering speech audio is not claimed. As to “producing, via an acoustic model, a phoneme sequence based on the digitized speech audio values”, a human can receive the claimed values and evaluate them against an acoustic model such as hidden Markov model. A hidden Markov model is simply a graphical probabilistic model with states/nodes and edges.
As to the machine computation, the examiner notes that adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I L.L.C. v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Insurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”)). The claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the operation of the ASR system as in the McRO case. The examiner notes that the limitations of McRO incorporate specific features of rules limited to a specific process for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of animated characters. The improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field is allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators. The current claims recite adding a new token to the pronunciation dictionary. They do not recite an additional element (or combination of elements) that may have integrated the exception into a practical application. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
According to MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2), claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, and are not patent eligible. The corresponding rejection is repeated below.
With regard to art, applicant arguments are persuasive. The corresponding rejection has been withdrawn.
With regard to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, applicant requests that this rejection be held in abeyance until otherwise-allowable subject matter is identified. Accordingly, the corresponding rejection is repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claimed invention is directed to a method (process), system (machine), and computer readable medium (manufacture) for receiving digitized speech audio processed into mel filter bank bin values; producing, via an acoustic model, a phoneme sequence based on the digitized speech audio; tokenizing the phoneme sequence into a token sequence of tokens from a pronunciation dictionary, wherein a phoneme subsequence does not match a token in the pronunciation dictionary; and adding a new token to the pronunciation dictionary, the new token having the phoneme subsequence as its pronunciation.
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Under the 35 U.S.C. 101 new guidelines, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claimed steps fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The step of receiving digitized speech audio, producing a phoneme sequence based on the digitized speech audio; tokenizing the phoneme sequence into a token sequence of tokens from a pronunciation dictionary; and adding a new token to the pronunciation dictionary, may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, a person can receive digital data representing an audio signal, generate phoneme sequences out the digital data, split the sequences of phonemes into smaller units called tokens, using a pronunciation dictionary, and add a new token to the pronunciation dictionary using a pen and paper.
Therefore, the claimed steps fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The claim recites the additional element “a computer”. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
As to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (Step 2B), as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 2, the use of “computer” is at high level of generality, and even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further refer and describe the pronunciation dictionary, the phoneme subsequence, speech signal; and describing the process of incrementing an occurrence count of the phoneme subsequence, identifying a slot for an entity where the phoneme subsequence fits in the semantic grammar, and updating the token sequence probabilities, which encompasses a mental process that is practically performed in the human mind, as explained above in Step 2A, Prong 1. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, and are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of U.S Patent 12080275. Although conflicting claims 1-7 and 15-20 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims1-7 and 15-20 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims of the Patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of the claims. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 8-14, beside broadening the scope of the claims of the Patent, they recite the limitation “searching the pronunciation dictionary for a token with a pronunciation that is within a specific edit distance of the phoneme subsequence, wherein the edit distance is inversely related to the phonetic similarity of phonemes”, which is obvious over the prior art Li, as evidenced by the prior rejection below.
Current Application
US 12080275
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically enhancing natural language recognition in an Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) system, the method comprising:
receiving digitized speech audio processed into mel filter bank bin values;
producing, via an acoustic model, a phoneme sequence based on the digitized speech audio;
tokenizing the phoneme sequence into a token sequence of tokens from a pronunciation dictionary, wherein a phoneme subsequence does not match a token in the pronunciation dictionary; and
adding a new token to the pronunciation dictionary, the new token having the phoneme subsequence as its pronunciation.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: incrementing an occurrence count of the phoneme subsequence across a multiplicity of speech audio segments, wherein the adding step is conditioned on the occurrence count satisfying a threshold.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the pronunciation dictionary is domain specific.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, via applying a semantic grammar to the token sequence, a slot for an entity where the phoneme subsequence fits in the semantic grammar.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the phoneme subsequence represents a new entity in the semantic grammar.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: updating the token sequence probabilities of a statistical language model including the new entity.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the digitized speech audio comprises one or more of a directly digitized audio waveform, a spectrogram and a spectrogram.
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically enhancing natural language recognition in an Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) system, the method comprising:
receiving digitized speech audio comprising one or more of a directly digitized audio waveform, a spectrogram and a spectrogram processed into mel filter bank bin values; producing, via an acoustic model, a phoneme sequence based on the digitized speech audio; generating a token sequence from the phoneme sequence via a pronunciation dictionary, wherein a token represents a word in the pronunciation dictionary;
identifying a phoneme subsequence from the phoneme sequence that does not match a token in the pronunciation dictionary;
identifying, via applying a semantic grammar to the token sequence, a slot for an entity where the phoneme subsequence fits in the semantic grammar, wherein the phoneme subsequence represents a new entity in the semantic grammar;
adding a new token to the pronunciation dictionary, the new token having the phoneme subsequence as its pronunciation; and
adding, to an entity list that is domain specific, the new entity with the phoneme subsequence as its pronunciation.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: incrementing an occurrence count of the phoneme subsequence across a multiplicity of speech audio segments, wherein the adding step is conditioned upon the occurrence count exceeding a threshold.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: updating the token sequence probabilities of a statistical language model including the new entity.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights