Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/169,659

TRAINING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ACOUSTIC MODEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Priority
Oct 04, 2022 — provisional 63/412,887 +3 more
Examiner
VO, HUYEN X
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Yamaha Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
882 granted / 1058 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
§103
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
3.2%
-36.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1058 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim 1, drawn to a process of training acoustic models using sound waveforms, classified in G10L15/063. II. Claims 2-13, drawn to a process of providing a user interface for the user to interact with, classified in G06F/167. III. Claims 14-20, drawn to a process of using acoustic model to generate acoustic features for synthesizing a synthetic sound waveform in accordance with musical feature input, classified in G1013/03. Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination (invention I) relates to a process of training acoustic models using sound waveforms, while the subcombination (invention II) has separate utility such as providing a user interface for the user to interact with. Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination (invention I) relates to a process of training acoustic models using sound waveforms while the subcombination has separate utility such as using acoustic model to generate acoustic features for synthesizing a synthetic sound waveform in accordance with musical feature input. Inventions III and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination (invention III) relates to using acoustic model to generate acoustic features for synthesizing a synthetic sound waveform in accordance with musical feature input, while the subcombination (invention II) has separate utility such as providing a user interface for the user to interact with. The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: --the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; --the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or --the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4. 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 at 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. /HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12738278
SPEECH RECOGNITION DEVICE
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12725592
EFFICIENT COMBINED HARMONIC TRANSPOSITION
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12718807
ADVANCED TELEPROMPTER WITH DYNAMIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12717542
BITSTREAM REPRESENTING AUDIO IN AN ENVIRONMENT
2y 4m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12711317
Interacting with a Language Model using External Knowledge and Feedback
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.9%)
2y 8m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1058 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month