Obviousness

The provided text for US Patent 11,715,457 B1, specifically under the "Prior art" section, lists "Prior art keywords" (audio signal, features, chunk, speech audio, chunks) and a "Prior art date" (2022-01-10). However, it does not include a list of specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, journal articles, or other publications) that can be identified and combined for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Without specific prior art documents, it is not possible to:

1. Identify concrete combinations of references.
2. Explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine those specific references.

The "Background" section of the patent generally notes that "Existing solutions for correcting accent in audio signals are not very effective in real-time conversations." This statement acknowledges the existence of prior art in accent correction, but implies that these solutions did not adequately address the real-time processing challenge with low latency. However, this general statement does not provide the specific technical details of these prior art solutions necessary for a § 103 analysis involving combinations.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious, as the authoritative patent text provided does not enumerate specific prior art references.