DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. A response was filed in this application on 07/10/2026 after the non-final rejection of 04/13/2026. Claims 1, 12, 20, 23-24 are amended while claim 7 was cancelled in this latest submission by the Applicant. Thus, claims 1-6 and 8-25 are currently pending for reconsideration by the Examiner and are examined below. 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 amendments
2. The Applicant has acknowledged the allowable subject matter indicated in the last office action and accordingly amended the independent claims with the subject matter of (now cancelled) claim 7. The prior art rejections are therefore withdrawn in light of these amendments further in view of the arguments presented in this latest submission.
Response to arguments
3. The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive for at least the reasons outlined below.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior art but fail to overcome the rejection under 35U.S.C. 101. The Applicant argues the benefits of the claimed invention as outlined in the specification; however, these benefits have not been made part of the independent claims and hence cannot be given patentable weight. The first part of the newly added limitation (determining a median inter-syllable time) merely adds one more time related calculation, which also can be performed by a human with the aid of at most pen and paper. On the other hand, the purely intended use recited in the second half of the newly added limitation (of removing sensitivity to outliers) cannot be interpreted as a technical solution or improvement by way of a practical application in of itself. Hence, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is sustained.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-6 and 8-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being nothing more than an abstract idea. As an example, analysis of claim 1, reveals that the core of this claim is a sequence of data analysis and transformation operations: detect syllable onsets, compute average inter-syllable time (median), compute a rate adjustment, apply a smoothing filter, and adjust buffer lengths (and optionally overlap buffers and blend signals). These are mathematical operations, algorithmic manipulations of audio data and control/decision steps. As such these individual elements represent algorithms or mental processes that can be expressed as mathematical formulas or procedural steps, which in turn can be accomplished by a human being using their mind and at most pen/paper. Hence, all these steps fall under the category of mental processes. These steps are drafted at a high level of generality without tying it to a specific technological improvement and the computing device recited herein can be a general-purpose computing device. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
recitation of a system, memory, computer readable storage device, computer program product or general-purpose computing devices merely read to generalized computer components, based upon the claim interpretation wherein the structure is interpreted using the specification. 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generalized computer components to generate, extract, determine, and generate, 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 claim is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 8-11, merely provide certain details of the calculations outlined above or outline more mathematical manipulations, such as stretching of buffer period, using the system for real-time or offline audio, use of particular latency period, use of particular types of filtering algorithms (bandpass or smoothing), inclusion of voices in the input data signal, inclusion of a target speech rate etc. These are all steps which themselves can also be accomplished by a human being with at most the aid of a pen/paper and hence also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12-19, are system claims for the corresponding method claims 1-11 and hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as outlined above. Claims 24-25, are computer program product (CPP) claims for the corresponding method claims 1-2 and hence rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as outlined above. Claims 20-22, are also rejected under 35U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as outlined above for method claims 1-3 and 9. Claim 23, is also rejected under 35U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as outlined above for method claims 1-2.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Aryal (U.S. Patent # 10643600 B1), James (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2006/0153163 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights