DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
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
The Amendment filed 08/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 4-8 and 13-17 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection for claims 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection, the Applicant asserts that any alleged judicial exceptions that may be recited in the claims are integrated into the practical application of programmatically determining a speed change between audio samples, and the claims are therefore directed to eligible subject matter at Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo subject matter eligibility test. The Applicant further asserts that the amended features of claim 1 could not practically be performed in the human mind. The Applicant goes on to reference July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Example 48 claim 3, claiming similarity to claim 1 of the subject application. They assert that the audio features as extracted use a technique that differs from methods that could practically be performed in the human mind. They state that the limitations, as currently amended, recite a computation of the similarity matrix that differs from audio similarity determination methods that could be practically performed in the human mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original claims, and the claims as amended, in their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a system and method for obtaining, processing, analyzing, and outputting data (i.e., audio samples). This is an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) as well as various mathematical operations (i.e., computing a similarity matrix, computing slope, computing speed change ratio, etc.). The steps of obtaining and processing the audio samples could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning, save for the recitation of generic computing components in claims 2, 12, and 20. Further, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of the limitations of the claims are all recited at high levels of generality. The recitation of “extracting a set of first audio features” and “extracting a set of second audio features” is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe extracting the features using any extraction process known within the art. This limitation amounts to mere data gathering and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of “computing a similarity matrix…, at corresponding timestamp pairs, wherein each of the timestamp pairs includes a first time interval of the plurality of first time intervals and a second time interval of the plurality of second time intervals” recites no details about how the similarity matrix is calculated or computed or about a particular method. It merely supplies a limitation on when the similarity points within the matrix should be computed. This represents no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The data gathering and analysis steps required to perform the method do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere data gathering and analysis do not provide an inventive concept. With respect to claims 2, 12, and 20, the additional element of “a feature extraction neural network” is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on a computer or using computer devices and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The “a feature extraction neural network” is recited at such a high-level of generality and is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea faster or more efficiently. There is no reasonable improvement to the functioning of the data obtaining, processing, analyzing, outputting, the computational system as a whole, or to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a system and method. These claims therefore invoke a statutory category (machine and process) in Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1, 11, and 20, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a system and method of receiving a first and second audio sample, extracting audio features from the first and second audio samples, computing a similarity matrix between the first audio features and the second audio features at specific time intervals, identifying peak points of similarity, identifying peak lines that include multiple of the peak points by computing slope of the lines between the points, comparing the slope to a slope range, adding the slope if it satisfies the range requirement, and computing the speed change ratio based upon the slope. These are abstract ideas in the form of certain method of organizing human activity (i.e. mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) as well as various mathematical operations (i.e., computing a similarity matrix, computing slope, computing speed change ratio, etc.). The steps of obtaining and processing the audio samples could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning, save for the recitation of generic computing components in claims 2, 12, and 20.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of “receive a first audio sample and a second audio sample” is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe receiving the audio samples with a microphone or any other sensor. This limitation amounts to mere data gathering and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of “extracting a set of first audio features” and “extracting a set of second audio features” is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe extracting the features using any process known within the art. This limitation amounts to mere data gathering and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of “computing a similarity matrix…, at corresponding timestamp pairs, wherein each of the timestamp pairs includes a first time interval of the plurality of first time intervals and a second time interval of the plurality of second time intervals” recites no details about how the similarity matrix is calculated or computed or about a particular method. It merely supplies a limitation on when the similarity points within the matrix should be computed. This represents no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. The recitation of “identifying a plurality of peak points” is claimed at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of “identifying one or more peak lines” is claimed at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The recitation of “computing respective candidate slopes” recites no details about how these are calculated or computed. This could be describing a very generalized method of calculating slope, which represents no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. The recitation of “determining whether the candidate slope is within a predefined slope range” is claimed at a high level of generality and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is merely a comparison of values. The recitation of “adding the candidate slope and the candidate endpoint to a candidate line map” is claimed at a high level of generality and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is merely the addition and analyzation of data. The recitation of “computing the speed change ratio” recites no details about how the speed change ratio is calculated or computer. It merely supplies an instruction to implement the abstract idea. The recitation of “output the speed change ratio” is mere data outputting and does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. This is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. There is no reasonable improvement to the functioning of the data obtaining, processing, analyzing, outputting, the computational system as a whole, or to any other technology or technical field.
Step 2B: The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The only additional elements beyond the abstract idea is the “feature extraction neural network” in claim 20, which performs generic computational functions such as obtaining, processing, analyzing, and outputting data. Such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the field.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, the claims relate to extracting the first and second audio features using a feature extraction neural network. This extraction process is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe extracting the features using any process known within the art. The only additional elements are “a feature extraction neural network”, which is generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 3, the claim relates to identifying the plurality of peaks as the K highest similarity values in the similarity matrix. This is a purely mathematical operation and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, the claims relate to computing a line extension between candidate endpoints, determining if the line extension is within a predefined slope error threshold, and if it is, adding the other endpoint to the candidate line map. These are purely mathematical operations and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claims 10 and 19, the claims relate to computing respective weight values of the candidate line maps, computing a weighted mean slope and standard deviation, and selecting sets of peak points that have values within a number of standard deviations. These are purely mathematical operations and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 21, the claim relates to computing a filtered list by computing a first stage filtered list, and spacing the candidate peak set apart from others by a predefined gap distance. These are purely mathematical operations and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 22, the claim relates to computing a plurality of estimated slope values, determining a within peak mean slope is in a predefined slope range, and adding the candidate peak set to a second stage filtered list. These are purely mathematical operations and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 23, the claim relates to computing a between peak mean slope set, computing a standard deviation of the within peak mean slopes set, and selecting the candidate peak sets as the filtered list. These are purely mathematical operations and could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. No additional elements are present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, and 18-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the independent claims including steps of “wherein identifying the one or more peak lines includes, for each peak point included in a subset of the plurality of peak points: computing respective candidate slopes between the peak point and a plurality of candidate endpoints included among the plurality of peak points; and for each of the candidate endpoints: determining whether the candidate slope is within a predefined slope range; and adding the candidate slope and the candidate endpoint to a candidate line map if the candidate slope is within the predefined slope range”.
Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0165827) discloses receiving a first audio sample and a second audio sample, determining the first audio sample and the second audio sample at least in part by: extracting a set of first audio features from the first audio sample and a set of second audio features from the second audio sample, computing a similarity matrix including a plurality of similarity values between the set of first audio features and the set of second audio features, identifying a plurality of peak points in the similarity matrix, identifying one or more peak lines that each include two or more peak points, and computing based at least in part on one or more respective slopes of the one or more peak lines.
Wang et al. (US Patent No. 7,627,477) discloses the teaching of a speed change ratio.
Zhao et al. (CN114464214A) discloses extracting the set of first audio features and the set of second audio features at a feature extraction neural network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0165827
US Patent No. 7,627,477
CN114464214A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights