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 .
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on July 31, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 have been amended. Claims 3-5, 10-12, 17-19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 20-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 20-21, Applicant argues that “Moshkowich does not cure the above-mentioned deficiencies of Lee and Sukumar” in Par. 4 of Page 7 of Remarks with regards to the newly amended limitations without further argument. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior art reference Moshkowich teaches the newly amended limitations as further argued below in the rejections regarding 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0097878 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lee”, in view of Moshkowich et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0327847 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Moshkowich”, and further in view of Sukumar (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0358496 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Sukumar”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Lee teaches the following limitations:
An apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry to: receive, from an input device [operation input apparatus 140], an input speech signal [voice data] (Fig. 2, Par. [0093], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]). Lee teaches an apparatus which receives voice data for querying a network. extract, from the input speech signal, at least one keyword; and convert the extracted at least one keyword to a first cleartext string [generate text data] (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]). Lee teaches generating text data from the voice input data. This generated text data can be considered to be an extraction of keywords under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a keyword is not defined. The voice recognition itself can therefore be considered a type of keyword extraction, i.e. text data is extracted from the audio data.
encrypt the input speech signal using a public encryption key to generate a first homomorphically encrypted string [homomorphically encrypt the generated text data] (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]). Lee teaches converting the received voice query data into text data which is homomorphically encrypted using a public key. (taught by Moshkowich below)
send the homomorphically encrypted string [transmits the generated query ciphertext] to a remote device [server apparatus] via a communication link [network] (Fig. 5, Par. [0081], Par. [0130], Par. [0171]). Lee teaches transmitting the homomorphically encrypted query data to a server apparatus over a network.
receive, from the remote device, a reply comprising a second homomorphically encrypted string [calculation result ciphertext] (Fig. 5, Par. [0173], Par. [0176], Par. [0177]). Lee teaches the server apparatus transmitting back a calculation result on the homomorphically encrypted text data, i.e. a second encrypted string. decrypt the second homomorphically encrypted string using a private encryption key to generate a second cleartext string (Fig. 5, Par. [0177]). Lee uses a secret key to restore the calculation result. This is considered to be a second cleartext string since the calculation was performed on the homomorphic encryption of text data.
(taught by Sukumar below)
Moshkowich teaches the following limitations:
wherein the extracted at least one keyword that is converted to the first clear test string and encrypted in the first homomorphically encrypted string is used to query a searchable database to obtain a matching result (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]). Moshkowich teaches that in homomorphic encryption systems, it is well known in the art that a response to a homomorphically encrypted query can be in the form of a database lookup in private information retrieval. Moshkowich further teaches returning a single ciphertext as a reply. Moshkowich further teaches that this reply is a result of performing homomorphic comparisons, i.e. matching according to the query.
that includes the matching result (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]). The resultant ciphertext is the result of the database lookup, i.e. search result.
Lee teaches a system for voice assistants using homomorphic encryption, but do not teach a database query for calculation of a response. Moshkowich however teaches that it is well known in the art that an alternative method of calculating a response to a voice query involves a database search (Par. [0005f]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the response calculation of Lee/Sukumar with the database lookup of Moshkowich in order to gain the predictable result of querying a database for an appropriate reply using the homomorphically encrypted string. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a database lookup of Moshkowich would have been a suitable alternative to the reply calculation of Lee, and that such a database query is compatible with the system of Lee as Moshkowich is similarly directed to homomorphic encryption querying systems.
Sukumar teaches the following limitation:
and convert the second cleartext string to the output speech signal into an output speech signal (Par. [0082], Par. [0083], Par. [0084]). Sukumar teaches converting a text response from a cloud-based voice assistant system into an audio output for a speaker.
Lee/Moshkowich teaches a system for preserving privacy through homomorphic encryption using voice input data, but does not teach outputting an audio output. Sukumar however teaches that the output for a cloud-based query for voice assistants can be returned as an audio signal, and further teaches that such audio output can promote usage of the voice assistant by being more familiar to the user (Par. [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the homomorphically encrypted query system of Lee/Moshkowich with the text-to-speech conversion of Sukumar in order to gain the predictable result of returning the search result to the user as an output speech signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a text-to-speech conversion to be compatible with the querying system of Lee/Moshkowich as Lee/Moshkowich returned a decrypted result as text data, and that such a vocal output also has the benefit of greater user adoption of a voice assistant system.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16:
Lee teaches the following limitation:
wherein the remote device is to use the first homomorphically encrypted string that includes the extracted at least one keyword (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]). It was previously shown that Lee taught using a homomorphically encrypted string to communicate with a server.
(taught by Moshkowich below)
Moshkowich teaches the following limitation:
to query the searchable database wherein the searchable database contains a deterministic set of answers in ciphertext to generate the reply that includes the matching result in the second homomorphically encrypted string (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]). It was previously taught by Moshkowich that Moshkowich returns search results, i.e. matching results, according to a query from a database, and this matching is deterministic.
The reasons for combination of references remain the same as above.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20:
Lee teaches the following limitation:
wherein the communication link is an unsecure communication link (Par. [0053], Par. [0081]). Lee teaches communicating over networks such as Bluetooth, which can be considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be an unsecure form of communication as it is well known in the art that it is vulnerable to attacks such as eavesdropping.
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 21:
Lee discloses the following limitation:
wherein the remote device comprises a homomorphic digital assistant service engine [server apparatus] (Fig. 5, Par. [0081], Par. [0130], Par. [0171]). The applicant’s specification does not define what is considered to be a homomorphic digital assistant service engine. For this reason, the server apparatus of Lee is considered to be such an engine under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as it is intended to provide a service to computing devices using homomorphic encryption.
Regarding Claim 8:
Lee teaches the following limitations:
A computer-based method, comprising (Par. [0043], Par. [0079]). Lee is directed towards a computer-based method.
receiving, from an input device, an input speech signal (Fig. 2, Par. [0093], Par. [0121], Par. [0169])
extracting, from the input speech signal, at least one keyword; and converting the extracted at least one keyword to a first cleartext string (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169])
encrypting the input speech signal using a public encryption key to generate a first homomorphically encrypted string (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]).
(taught by Moshkowich below)
sending the first homomorphically encrypted string to a remote device via communication link (Fig. 5, Par. [0081], Par. [0130], Par. [0171])
receiving, from the remote device, a reply comprising a second homomorphically encrypted string (Fig. 5, Par. [0173], Par. [0176], Par. [0177])
decrypting the second homomorphically encrypted string using a private encryption key to generate a second cleartext string (Fig. 5, Par. [0177])
(taught by Sukumar below)
Moshkowich teaches the following limitations:
wherein the extracted at least one keyword that is converted to the first clear test string and encrypted in the first homomorphically encrypted string is used to query a searchable database to obtain a matching result (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]).
that includes the matching result (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]).
Lee teaches a system for voice assistants using homomorphic encryption, but do not teach a database query for calculation of a response. Moshkowich however teaches that it is well known in the art that an alternative method of calculating a response to a voice query involves a database search (Par. [0005f]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the response calculation of Lee/Sukumar with the database lookup of Moshkowich in order to gain the predictable result of querying a database for an appropriate reply using the homomorphically encrypted string. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a database lookup of Moshkowich would have been a suitable alternative to the reply calculation of Lee, and that such a database query is compatible with the system of Lee as Moshkowich is similarly directed to homomorphic encryption querying systems.
Sukumar teaches the following limitation:
converting the second cleartext string into an output speech signal (Par. [0082], Par. [0083], Par. [0084]).
Lee/Moshkowich teaches a system for preserving privacy through homomorphic encryption using voice input data, but does not teach outputting an audio output. Sukumar however teaches that the output for a cloud-based query for voice assistants can be returned as an audio signal, and further teaches that such audio output can promote usage of the voice assistant by being more familiar to the user (Par. [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the homomorphically encrypted query system of Lee/Moshkowich with the text-to-speech conversion of Sukumar in order to gain the predictable result of returning the search result to the user as an output speech signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a text-to-speech conversion to be compatible with the querying system of Lee/Moshkowich as Lee/Moshkowich returned a decrypted result as text data, and that such a vocal output also has the benefit of greater user adoption of a voice assistant system.
Regarding Claim 15:
Lee teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to (Par. [0080], Par. [0086], Par. [0202]). Lee teaches a computer readable medium for performing the invention with a processor, and provides non-transitory examples of such media.
receive, from an input device, an input speech signal (Fig. 2, Par. [0093], Par. [0121], Par. [0169])
extract, from the input speech signal, at least one keyword; and convert the extracted at least one keyword to a first cleartext string (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]) encrypt the input speech signal using a public encryption key to generate a first homomorphically encrypted string (Par. [0112], Par. [0121], Par. [0169]) (taught by Moshkowich below)
send the first homomorphically encrypted string to a remote device via communication link (Fig. 5, Par. [0081], Par. [0130], Par. [0171])
receive, from the remote device, a reply comprising a second homomorphically encrypted string (Fig. 5, Par. [0173], Par. [0176], Par. [0177])
decrypt the second homomorphically encrypted string using a private encryption key to generate a second cleartext string (Fig. 5, Par. [0177])
(taught by Sukumar below)
Moshkowich teaches the following limitations:
wherein the extracted at least one keyword that is converted to the first clear test string and encrypted in the first homomorphically encrypted string is used to query a searchable database to obtain a matching result (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]).
that includes the matching result (Par. [0005], Par. [0018], Par. [0068], Par. [0072], Par. [0074]).
Lee teaches a system for voice assistants using homomorphic encryption, but do not teach a database query for calculation of a response. Moshkowich however teaches that it is well known in the art that an alternative method of calculating a response to a voice query involves a database search (Par. [0005f]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the response calculation of Lee/Sukumar with the database lookup of Moshkowich in order to gain the predictable result of querying a database for an appropriate reply using the homomorphically encrypted string. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a database lookup of Moshkowich would have been a suitable alternative to the reply calculation of Lee, and that such a database query is compatible with the system of Lee as Moshkowich is similarly directed to homomorphic encryption querying systems.
Sukumar teaches the following limitation:
and convert the second cleartext string to the output speech signal into an output speech signal (Par. [0082], Par. [0083], Par. [0084]).
Lee/Moshkowich teaches a system for preserving privacy through homomorphic encryption using voice input data, but does not teach outputting an audio output. Sukumar however teaches that the output for a cloud-based query for voice assistants can be returned as an audio signal, and further teaches that such audio output can promote usage of the voice assistant by being more familiar to the user (Par. [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the homomorphically encrypted query system of Lee/Moshkowich with the text-to-speech conversion of Sukumar in order to gain the predictable result of returning the search result to the user as an output speech signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a text-to-speech conversion to be compatible with the querying system of Lee/Moshkowich as Lee/Moshkowich returned a decrypted result as text data, and that such a vocal output also has the benefit of greater user adoption of a voice assistant system.
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
El Defrawy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,691,754 B1) – Includes methods regarding private information retrieval
Fujiwara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0064741 A1) – Includes methods regarding encrypted querying
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ETHAN V VO whose telephone number is (571)272-2505. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/E.V.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2431 /LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431