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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-13 and 16-24 are pending in this application.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because amended independent Claims 1, 6 and 13 are directed to a specific asserted improvement in speech-recognition technology and neural-network processing rather than an abstract idea. And the claims recite a specific technological mechanism that improves operation of a computer-based speech-recognition system itself.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method performed on generic data processing hardware comprising the following limitations:
Determining a word and a label
Determining a vector based on the word and label (using a block attention operation and a cross attention operation)
Predicting a hot word
Transcribing a text based on a vector
Training a model
These steps describe the collecting, processing, and analysis of data relating to input speech, followed by training a model based on the analyzed data. Courts have consistently held that such concepts—collecting information, calculating mathematical formulas, analyzing or processing data, and adjusting a model or system based on the results—are abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data collection, analysis, and display are abstract ideas); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content is an abstract idea).
The claim does not recite any technical details about how the model is trained differently from conventional models. Even though the claim references performing a block attention operation and a cross attention operation, as recited in claim 1, multi-level encoding, as recited in claim 6, these are recited functionally, without technical detail about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way.
Here, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of collecting and processing data, analyzing that data, and using that analysis to update a model.
Conclusion: Claims 1, 6 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2: Does the claim recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
The claim recites implementation on generic data processing hardware and routine computer components. There is no recitation of a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or any particular hardware configuration that improves the performance of the device or the speech recognition system.
Each limitation can be viewed as conventional computer functions or generic data processing:
Determining a word, a label and a vector (basic data calculating and decision-making).
Predicting a hot word (basic and decision-making).
Transcribing (routine speech recognition)
Training a model (routine model update).
The claim does not recite any technical details about how the fusion processing performs with multi-level neural network encoding operations and machine-learning based operation, nor does it describe any novel hardware or software architecture that improves computer functionality. The steps are performed on generic hardware without any specific enhancement to the technology.
The claim thus fails to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (holding that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is insufficient).
Furthermore, the pending claims are not similar to those at issue in Ex parte Desjardins, which notes the claims for improving the function of the machine learning model itself, citing reduced storage requirement, lowered system complexity, and the prevention of “catastrophic forgetting”- the claimed system changes the architecture itself – e.g., how information flows, not just what it does – that may satisfy eligibility.
Therefore, claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claims 6 and 13, claims 6 and 13 are similar to claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the rejection at this time. Please see the whole analysis below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-13 and 16-24 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent Claim 1 recites, “determining a reference word for first speech data and a hot word label for the reference word; performing fusion processing on a word feature of the reference word and an acoustic feature of the first speech data to obtain a fused feature vector; performing, by the model, hot word prediction based on the fused feature vector to obtain a hot word prediction result for the first speech data; performing, by the model, speech recognition based on the fused feature vector to obtain a predicted text for the first speech data; and training the model based on the hot word prediction result, the hot word label, and the predicted text, wherein the performing of the fusion processing on the word feature and the acoustic feature to obtain the fused feature vector comprises: performing a block attention operation on the word feature and the acoustic feature to obtain an operation result, wherein the performing of the block attention operation on the word feature and the acoustic feature to obtain the operation result comprises: determining a first query matrix based on the word feature, determining a first key matrix and a first value matrix based on the acoustic feature, and performing the block attention operation based on the first query matrix, the first key matrix, and the first value matrix to obtain the operation result; and performing a cross attention operation based on the operation result to obtain the fused feature vector”. The independent claims 1, 12, 13 and 16-24 recite similar workflow. Those tasks are similar to collecting information, calculating mathematical formula, analyzing or processing data, and adjusting a model or system based on the results as abstract ideas when claimed at a high level. See Alice and Data Engine (abstract idea of storing, organizing, collecting, calculating, and retrieving information / manipulating data).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory, processor) and broadly recite use of “training a model” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The mere invocation of “training a model” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “determine,” “perform”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more. Therefore, claims 1, 12, 13 and 16-24 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 4-5 and 7-11 are the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1, 4-13 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-13 and 16-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 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 SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
