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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on July 26, 2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending in this action. Claims 3 and 6-8 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ”waveform group generation unit” in claims 1, 2, and 9.
”voice recognition unit” in claims 1, 2, and 9.
”aggregation result generation unit” in claims 3-6, 8, and 9.
The voice recognition device corresponds to the specific structure in the form of generic CPU reads as system program stored in a ROM (see Figure 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim drawn to “a computer readable medium storing a program …”. In the specification, at paragraph 0010, excerpt “present disclosure is a computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a voice recognition device that performs voice recognition on a voice signal input at a manufacturing site and uses the voice signal as a voice command, and the program causes a computer to function" (no other information disclosed about the meaning or scope of a "computer readable medium”). In the state of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instructions and thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a "computer readable medium" covers a signal per se. The transitory signal does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (In re Nuijten). Therefore, claim 9 does not fall within a statutory category.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of voice recognition. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims directed to an abstract idea of voice recognition. The claim is drawn to device/computer readable recoding medium (a series of steps or acts) that similar to an idea ‘Of itself such as an instantiated concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’.
The claim does not require that the device be implemented by a particular machine. There is no transformation of a physical objects or data into a different state or thing. This voice recognition is similar to delivering user-selected media content to a portable device found by the courts to be abstract idea (Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and also displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found by the courts to be abstract idea (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims broadly recite the result (voice recognition, adjusted waveform group generation unit, voice recognition unit), rather than sufficiently claiming a technical means of achieving the result. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commons, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim requires the functional results ... but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
The claims recite a Judicial exception relating to “voice recognition, adjusted waveform group generation unit, voice recognition unit”. Here the claims do not change the underlying or other technology, rather the claimed techniques playing using computing device as pedagogical tool. The claimed additional elements - -the computing device- -“merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” or “do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2018- 2239, 2020 WL 1069742, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020) (“We have held that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.”).
Accordingly, claims 1-9 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. As the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to the .. . judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic computer. The claim amounts to no more than voice recognition. Taking the claimed elements either individually or as ordered combination, that transform claims into patent-eligible application, since claims merely recite use of already existing computer-based voice recognition, and there is no “inventive concept” in play using computing device well- understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry of voice recognition, since claims, at most, attempt to limit abstract idea to particular technological environment, and such limitation has been held insufficient to save claims in this context, and since dependent claims are not rendered patent-eligible by recitation of additional steps, such as in claims 3-6 and 8, aggregation result generation unit; in claim 7, adjustment scheme registration unit; even though additional limitations may narrow scope of claims. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-9, are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sainath et al. (US 2016/0284247) in view of Bhadkamkar et al. (US 6,360,202).
As per claim 1, Sainath discloses, a voice recognition device that performs voice recognition on a voice signal input at a manufacturing site and uses the voice signal as a voice command, the voice recognition device comprising:
an adjusted waveform group generation unit that performs multiple different types of adjustment on a predetermined attribute of the input voice signal and generates a plurality of adjusted voice signals corresponding to the multiple different types of adjustment (Fig. 1, element 120; Fig. 4, elements 438 and 440, Paragraphs 0057-0063, “waveform”, “parameters”); and
a voice recognition unit that performs voice recognition on the voice signals and the plurality of adjusted voice signals output by the adjusted waveform group generation unit (Fig. 4, elements 420 and 460; Paragraph 0059),
Sainath does not explicitly disclose, but Bhadkamkar discloses, wherein the adjustment performed by the adjusted waveform group generation unit includes adjustment of an utterance speed as an attribute to be adjusted (col. 13, line 24-col. 17, line 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sainath by including adjustment of an utterance speed as an attribute to be adjusted as taught by Bhadkamkar so as to performs well in modifying audio data representing both voiced and unvoiced sounds, especially in view of the manner and relative proportion in which such sounds appear in human speech (col. 13, lines 31-36).
As per claim 2, Sainath discloses, wherein the adjustment performed by the adjusted waveform group generation unit is to add a change determined by a random number to the attribute to be adjusted (Paragraphs 0057-0063).
As per claim 3, Sainath discloses, further comprising an aggregation result generation unit that performs a statistical process in accordance with a predetermined aggregation scheme on a group of recognition results recognized by the voice recognition unit for the voice signal and the plurality of adjusted voice signals (Fig. 4, elements 420 and 460).
As per claim 7, Sainath discloses, further comprising an adjustment scheme registration unit that accepts and registers user input for the attribute and an adjustment level of the adjustment to be adjusted (Paragraphs 0066-0067).
As per claim 9, Sainath discloses, a computer readable storage medium storing a program executed by a voice recognition device that performs voice recognition on a voice signal input at a manufacturing site and uses the voice signal as a voice command, the program causing a computer to function as:
an adjusted waveform group generation unit that performs multiple different types of adjustment on a predetermined attribute
a voice recognition unit that performs voice recognition on the voice signal and the plurality of adjusted voice signals output by the adjusted waveform group generation unit (Fig. 4, elements 420 and 460; Paragraph 0059).
Sainath does not explicitly disclose, but Bhadkamkar discloses, attribute including an utterance speed of the input voice signal (col. 13, line 24-col. 17, line 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sainath by including adjustment of an utterance speed as an attribute to be adjusted as taught by Bhadkamkar so as to performs well in modifying audio data representing both voiced and unvoiced sounds, especially in view of the manner and relative proportion in which such sounds appear in human speech (col. 13, lines 31-36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gibson et al. (US 6,336,092) targeted vocal transformation.
Kleindienst et al. (US 6,598,020) discloses, adaptive emotion and initiative generation for conversational system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
March 19, 2026
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656