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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/29/2025 has been entered.
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 1-2, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 2 recite(s):
Claim 1:
An automated computer-implemented method to facilitate interactive learning of a target subject of study for a user via a real-time, two-way audio exchange connection, the method performed by one or more processors executing stored instructions to perform the steps of:
establishing the real-time, two-way audio exchange connection with a user device;
receiving an input audio stream from the user device during a learning session:
processing the input audio stream on a per-utterance basis using a speech-to-text engine to generate transcribed text for an utterance of the user;
storing the transcribed text in a database as part of a conversation transcript for the current learning session;
retrieving context information for the user from a database, wherein the context information comprises at least one of: a subject of study, a user's preferred language, a native language, a target language, a detected language associated with the user's utterance, at least a portion of the conversation transcript from the current learning session, or at least a portion of one or more conversation transcripts from previous learning sessions associated with the user;
providing the retrieved context information as input context to a large language model;
generating, using the large language model. a personalized text response based on the input context;
processing the text response to insert speech synthesis markup language tags that designate one or more languages for a speech synthesis engine, wherein each designated language is selected from at least one of: the user's preferred language, a native language. a target language, a detected language of the user's utterance, the context information, or a default language;
generating a synthetic voice audio using the speech synthesis engine by processing the text response with the inserted speech synthesis markup language tags, wherein the language of the synthetic voice audio switches dynamically based on the inserted speech synthesis markup language tags; and
transmitting back to the user's device the generated synthetic voice audio signal.
Claim 2:
A system to facilitate interactive learning of a target subject of study for a user, comprising:
a communications interface configured to establish a real-time, two-way audio exchange connection with a user device;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a database configured to store user preferences and conversation transcripts of learning sessions; and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communications interface and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the one or more processors configured to execute stored instructions to:
receive an input audio stream from the user device:
process the input audio stream to generate transcribed text for an utterance of the user;
store the transcribed text in the database as part of a conversation transcript for a current learning session;
retrieve context information for the user from the database, wherein the context information comprises at least one of: a subject of study, a user's preferred language, a native language, a target language, a detected language of the user's utterance, at least a portion of the conversation transcript from the current learning session, or at least a portion of one or more conversation transcripts from previous learning sessions associated with the user;
provide the retrieved context information as input context to a large language model;
generate, using the large language model, a contextually relevant and coherent text response based on the context information;
format the text response generated by the large language model by inserting speech synthesis markup language tags that designate one or more languages for a speech synthesis engine, wherein each designated language is selected from at least one of: the user's preferred language, a native language, a target language, a detected language of the user's utterance, the context information, or a default language;
generate, using the speech synthesis engine, a synthetic voice audio by processing the formatted text response with the inserted speech synthesis markup language tags, wherein the speech synthesis engine dynamically switches the language of synthesis based on the inserted speech synthesis markup language tags;
and
transmit, via the communications interface, the generated synthetic voice audio signal containing the contextually relevant response to the user device.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processor “, “two-way audio exchange connection with a user device”, “a speech-to-text engine”, “storing the transcribed text in a database”, “database”, “large language model”, “speech synthesis engine”, “a communications interface”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher observing students’ language developmental progress and adjusting its instruction/lecture accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the claim limitation can also be interpreted to fall within the “mental process” grouping of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) –“one or more processor “, “two-way audio exchange connection with a user device”, “a speech-to-text engine”, “storing the transcribed text in a database”, “database”, “large language model”, “speech synthesis engine”, “a communications interface”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 14-15 on the use of generic computing equipment and paragraph 21 on the use of LLM as a particular technological environment).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 13 and 15-17 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b). Accordingly, these rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the current limitations does not fall under the abstract idea interpretation under 35 U.S.C 101. The Applicant argued that the current the limitations solve the technical problem of “statelessness” in an automated communication (e.g.: VoIP/PTSN calls) by mechanically retrieving database records to seed the context window of a generative large language model. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to the evaluate for the improvements in the functioning of a computer or technical field, the specification must be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Unfortunately, the current specification does not provide any disclosure that solves problem of “statelessness” in an automated communication (e.g.: VoIP/PTSN calls) by mechanically retrieving database records to seed the context window of a generative large language model. The specification appears to be silent for any disclosure on this matter.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the current claim limitation solves the problem a specific data-transformation process where the Longitudinal State (the user's interaction data) is transformed into a Technical Control Signal (the SSML tag). This control signal dynamically reconfigures the operation of the speech synthesis engine, forcing it to switch voice models within a single audio stream generation cycle. This ensures that the generated audio signal accurately reflects the determined context without the latency or disconnection that would typically result from a stateless synthesis process. Similarly, the specification also silent on the teaching of the transformation of user’s interaction data into Technical Control Signal (the SSML tag).
The Applicant also argued that a human teacher cannot insert markup language tags into their speech to instantaneously, react during a real-time conversation. However, the MPEP states a claim can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. In this particular case, the limitation appears to be performed in a generic computing device or the claim limitation appears to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715