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
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s response to submission filed on 1/31/2025. Claims 1-17 are pending of which claims 1, and 10 are independent. As such, claims 1-17 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig.6 contains typos. For figs 6, in ref box 66, the description for microphone/camera. However, In para [0090] of the specification of the instant filed application, “microphone” is reference as “616”, and additionally, there is no mention of a camera associated with fig. 6. There is also no mentioning of a reference designator “66” anywhere in the spec. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic or well-known or conventional computer components. That is, other than reciting “language model”, nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or a part of human social interaction. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to assisting with speech therapy, which is a mental process and/or human gathering activities that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process, human interactions and/or insignificant extra solution activity, for example:
receiving a speech response of a subject to a prompt; (e.g., listening a person answering.)
comparing the speech response to a previous speech response of the subject; (e.g., mentally remembering and comparing the previous person verbal response to the current or based on notes taken using pen and paper.)
determining a complexity for a subsequent prompt based on the comparison; (e.g., evaluating difficulty of the question based on the response comparison.)
applying a language model to the speech response to generate a corrected speech response; (e.g., mentally correcting the answer based on grammar rules.) [the language model is a generic computer component that can be used to feed in an input and then process the input and provide an output]
generating the subsequent prompt based on the determined complexity and the corrected speech response; (e.g., create more following question based on evaluation of the difficulties of the previous response and the corrected response.)
and providing the subsequent prompt to the subject to receive a subsequent speech response. (e.g., read out the follow up question to the person in order to hear a follow up answer.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 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 limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“language model”) to obtain, extract, and/or generate data invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“language model”), with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 10 recites a computer-readable storage medium claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 10 further recites “non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 6-10, and 15-19 depend from independent claims 1, and 11 respectively, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, and 11 from above.
Claim 2 further comprising: receiving an initial speech response to the prompt; applying a speech-to-text model to generate an initial speech response transcription; applying the first or a second language model to generate a corrected initial speech response transcription; applying a text-to-speech model to the corrected initial speech response transcription to generate a corrected initial speech response; providing the corrected initial speech response to the subject; and receiving the speech response in response to providing the corrected initial speech response to the subject. (e.g., listening to someone answering a question, provide a transcription using pen and paper, correct the transcription, speak out the corrected text to the person, and listen to the person after providing the correction.) [speech to text model and text to speech model are generic computer components that are feed an input and process and provide an output]
Claim 3 further recite: wherein the corrected initial speech response is generated as a voice imitation of the subject. (e.g., mimic the corrected response to the original person’s voice.)
Claim 4 further comprising: receiving an initial speech response to the prompt; providing the initial speech response to the subject; and receiving the speech response from the subject responsive to providing the initial speech response to the subject. (e.g., listening to someone answering a question, tell the answer to a person, and listening to the verbal response from the person after the person has been told the initial answer.)
Claim 5 further recites: receiving an audiovisual recording comprising the initial speech response; and providing the initial speech response by outputting the audiovisual recording. (e.g., receiving a video recording contains the initial audio response, and they replay the video clip.)
Claim 6 further recites: wherein comparing the speech response to the previous speech response comprises comparing acoustic measurements of the speech response and the previous speech response. (e.g., comparing difference of previous response in terms of pitch, speed, tone or loudness.)
Claim 7 further recites: wherein comparing the speech response to the previous speech response comprises comparing linguistic measurements of the speech response and the previous speech response. (e.g., after written down and keeping record of speech response over time, compare the responses for number of words, parts of speech like verbs and nouns to determine simplicity or complexity of the responses.)
Claim 8 further recites: wherein the subsequent prompt comprises the corrected speech response. (e.g., provide corrected speech response to the follow up question.)
Claim 9 further recites: wherein comparing the speech response to the previous speech response comprises comparing the speech response to a learning curve determined using the previous speech response. (e.g., listen to a person talk, based on memory or notes taken from previous responses, draw progress curve using paper and pen, and determine if the current response matches growth expectation.)
The analysis of Claims 11-16, 17 corresponds to claims 2-7, 9 respectively and therefore similar rationale of rejection is applied to these claims respectively.
In sum, claims 2-9 and 11-17 depend from claims 1, and 10 respectively, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-9 and 11-17 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claims 1 and 10. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-9 and 11-17: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 2-9 and 11-17 are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be potentially allowable if amended to overcome the pertinent rejections under section 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potentially allowable subject matter:
With respect to Claim 1, The closest prior arts found during the search are as follows: Linebarger (US 7203649), Bettencourt discloses: receiving voice/speech input from a patient, evaluate use response and provide feedback, tracks predetermined number of attempts from historical record, adapts subsequent instruction type or repeats simple prompts, and iterative prompt loops back to the user for continuous improvements. However, Linebarger does not disclose or suggest generate corrected response, use of language model and dynamically adjusting prompt complexity based on ongoing comparison of current response with previous response. See fig. 3 and associated description for additional details.
Jones US 20120116772 – discloses a cloud-based speech therapy assessment and evaluation of speech disorders, analyze spatio-temporal pattern in the voice, which reads on tracking and comparing current response to previous response. See para 0046 and figs. 1, and 4-6. However, it does not teach or suggest use of AI workflow of using language model for correction, and prompt complexity adjustment based on comparison of current and past responses.
Das, M., & Saha, A. (2017, September). An automated speech-language therapy tool with interactive virtual agent and peer-to-peer feedback. In 2017 4th international conference on advances in electrical engineering (icaee) (pp. 510-515). IEEE. -teaches using automated speech and language therapy tool with interactive virtual assistants to play the role of a therapist. The system provides sound/word task with audiovisual cue and articulation to the patient, in response, the patient pronounces the sound/word, the virtual assistant sends the patient’s audio response to the server which analyze the speech and check for mispronunciation and sent the detected error back to the virtual assistant, then the virtual assistant provides feedback to the patient. However, the disclosure is silent on adaptively adjusting the prompts based on comparison of the current and past response, and it does not teach or suggest an iterative feedback mechanism as the claim requires.
Accordingly, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest the invention set forth in claim 1. Other independent claim 10, although different in statutory category, but contains similar limitations as claim 1, therefore also contains potentially allowable subject matter. Further dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 inherit the potentially allowable subject matter from claims 1, and 11 respectively, and thus, also contain potentially allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Webb US 11189191 – discloses method for improving language skills, “Methods of using a tool for improving language skills comprising selecting a language concept and then a word associated with the language concept; asking the patient to answer a question related to the language concept about the first word; scoring the patient's response to the based upon at least one or more of the following: the number of words given, the number of prompts the patient needed to be provided in order to illicit the first response, the amount of time the patient needed to produce the first response; and then moving the word to a first location, that physically represents to the patient the first word score they achieved. Further aspects involve calculating a total therapeutic session score by totaling up all the individual word scores from the therapeutic session and producing a therapeutic session report. As well as comparing results across sessions.” See Abstract for details.
Rykova, E., & Walther, M. (2024). AphaDIGITAL–digital speech therapy solution for aphasia patients with automatic feedback provided by a virtual assistant. – describes the use of a mobile application for speech and language therapy to support people affected with aphasia. The application involves using virtual assistants to provide detail feedback and corrections. See Abstract and fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on 571-272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights