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 .
Detailed Action
The office action sent in response to Applicant’s communication received on 11/01/2024 for the application number 18862496. The office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following placed of record in the file: Specification, Abstract, Oath/Declaration and claims.
Status of the claims
Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure submitted on 11/01/2024 before the mailing data of the first office action. The /submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of claims
Claims 1-4 and 7 are amended. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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 1-7 are rejected under § 101
Claim 1 recites:
processing circuitry configured to (a) compute an Equipment impairment factor Ie in a Rating factor R calculating expression of the E-model based on an assessment result obtained by assessing test speech sound by an subject based on DCR or ITU-R BS.1116 based on a subjective evaluation scale including both words indicating a difference in the test speech sound from reference speech sound and words indicating listening easiness of the test speech sound; (b) compute a Rating factor R of the E-model based on the computed Equipment impairment factor Ie.
Step (a) can be executed manually using pencil and paper. Given a model book, you can have a reference and test listener hear the words to evaluate sound variation and listening ease. Once collected, calculate the Ie value by computing the difference between these scores based on the ITU-R BS.116 standard or DRC guidelines.
step (b) can be completed by a human, as they can calculate the R-value using the equation and the given Ie value.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least an apparatus . Thus, the claim is a machine , which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Steps a and b, they encompasses mental activity because given a model book, you can have a reference and test listener hear the words to evaluate sound variation and listening ease. Once collected, calculate the Ie value by computing the difference between these scores based on the ITU-R BS.116 standard or DRC guidelines.
Additionally, a human can calculate the R-value using the equation and the given Ie value.. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the “computing” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim using a processing circuitry, which is a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations (a) and (b), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-3, human can perform the calculation on different scales.
Regarding claim 4, claim recite the setup of the test speaker and the reference speaker for calculation purpose and performing data manipulation using a setup which can be done by the human using pen and paper, hence patent ineligible.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, similar analysis analogous to claim 1 are applicable.
Regarding claim 2, similar analysis analogous to claim 2 are applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “processing circuitry in claims 1-4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Processing circuitry is not defined anywhere in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi ( US 20040186731 ) and further in view of Kurihara ( Subjective Quality Estimation Using PESQ for Hands-Free Terminal)
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teach a communication quality evaluation apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to compute an Equipment impairment factor Ie ( overall degradation, Fig 3, Para 0072) in a Rating factor R calculating expression of the E-model based on an assessment result obtained evaluation scale including both words indicating a difference in the test speech sound from reference speech sound and words indicating listening easiness of the test speech sound (based on physcological degradation and quality of interaction, Para 0072) ; and compute a Rating factor R of the E-model based on the computed Equipment impairment actor Ie ( computing the overall degradation, Fig 3)
Takahashi does not teach the concept of assessment result obtained by assessing test speech sound by an subject based on DCR or ITU-R BS.1116 based on a subjective evaluation scale including both words indicating a difference in the test speech sound from reference speech sound and words indicating listening easiness of the test speech sound
However, Kurihara teach assessment result obtained by assessing test speech sound by an subject based on DCR or ITU-R BS.1116 based on a subjective evaluation scale including both words indicating a difference in the test speech sound from reference speech sound ( DMOS/dcr which shows the degradation relative to the reference based on subjective evaluation, See 4.2. Evaluation comparing DMOSs and PESQ scores) and words indicating listening easiness of the test speech sound ( MOS-LQO evaluations, See 5. Comparison of PESQ and ACR scores with proposed conversational test procedure )
It would have been obvious to POSITA having the teachings of Takahashi to further modify with the concept of Kurihara before effective filing to improve the results of rating by using and correlating the subjective quality.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi modified by Kurihara as above in claim 1, teach the processing circuitry configured to compute[[s]] an Equipment impairment factor Ie in a Rating factor R calculating expression of the E-model based on an estimation value of subjective assessment obtained by linearly converting a PESQ evaluation value of the test speech sound by using a regression expression obtained in advance for the assessment result and the PESQ evaluation value of the test speech ( Para 0044-0045, PESQ based on regression, Section 5)
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi as above in claim 1, teach wherein the subjective evaluation scale includes "5: no perceptible difference from reference speech sound", "4: perceptible difference but audible", "3: perceptible difference and slightly inaudible", "2: perceptible difference and barely audible", and "1: perceptible difference and almost inaudible" ( For the subjective evaluation there is widely used the opinion test defined in ITU-T Recommendation P.800. In this method the actual subjective quality rated on a 1-to-5 scale is given as a mean value, which is called MOS (Mean Opinion Score), Para 0003)
Regarding claim 5, rejection analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Regarding claim 6, rejection analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to function as the communication quality evaluation apparatus according to claim 1 ( Para 0083)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is being objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 5:30PM.
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, Phan Hai can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights