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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-13, 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 15-19, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trammell (US 20150025889 A1) in view of Bitzer (US 20030182106 A1).
Claim 11: Trammell discloses a method for identifying a particular speaker from among a set of speakers, via a computer which comprises a computer memory in which at least one reference voice signature associated with one of the speakers in said set is recorded (Figure 2: Signature Storage 240), the method comprising:
acquiring an identifying voice signal produced by the particular speaker, ([0011]: receive an input voice)
constructing an identifying voice signature in accordance with said identifying voice signal, ([0011]: combine the input voice signal with a key to obtain a voice signature)
comparing said identifying voice signature with the at least one reference voice signature recorded in the computer memory, ([0011]: the voice and spike set combination is compared against the user’s identification signature)
identifying the particular speaker in accordance with the result of said comparison, wherein the at least one reference voice signature recorded in the computer memory was determined in accordance with a recorded voice signal and with a predetermined extension signal ([0017]-[0018]: a voice signal and a key are summed to create an identification signature; verify the user’s identity by comparing against the stored signature)
wherein provision is made, before the constructing, for generating a complete signal which comprises said identifying voice signal and said predetermined extension signal, ([0011]: the input voice signal and the key are combined before comparing against the signature)
wherein, in the constructing, the identifying voice signature is constructed in accordance also with said extension signal. ([0011]: the voice signature is created from the combined voice/key signal)
Trammell does not teach adding a first portion of the predetermined extension signal before the recorded voice signal and a second portion of the predetermined extension signal after the recorded voice signal such that the at least one reference voice signature includes the recorded voice signal between the first and second portions of the predetermined extension signal.
However, Bitzer does teach adding a first portion of the predetermined extension signal before the recorded voice signal and a second portion of the predetermined extension signal after the recorded voice signal such that the at least one reference voice signature includes the recorded voice signal between the first and second portions of the predetermined extension signal. (Figure 25: signal lengthening).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to affix a signal in between two portions of an extension signal because it facilitates the temporal lengthening of the original signal (see Bitzer [0001]-[0002], [0099]).
Claim 12: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein the computer memory comprises a plurality of reference voice signatures which are associated, respectively, with a plurality of speakers in said set, the extension signal being associated with one of the speakers and being different from the extension signals associated with the other speakers, said memory storing each extension signal so as to be associated with one of the speakers. ([0017]: Signature Storage 240; the set of audio spikes are specific per user)
Claim 15: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein the extension signal is a function of a sum of at least one sinusoid with a frequency of between 50 and 650 Hz. ([0017]: the spikes are created by adding a predetermined number of partials; spikes have varying frequency; Fig 3: Keys are constructed from harmonic partials which are inherently sinusoidal)
Although Trammell does not disclose a particular frequency range, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at using least one sinusoid with a frequency of between 50 Hz and 650 Hz via routine optimization as a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art has not been disclosed (see MPEP 2144.05). Trammell constructs its keys using harmonic partials (see Trammell Fig 3 and [0017]), and harmonics within the range are present in the typical human voice; thus one with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using the claimed frequency range.
Claim 16: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein the extension signal is a function of a sum of at least one sinusoid with a frequency of between 100 and 500 Hz. ([0017]: the spikes are created by adding a predetermined number of partials; spikes have varying frequency; Fig 3: Keys are constructed from harmonic partials which are inherently sinusoidal)
Although Trammell does not disclose a particular frequency range, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at using least one sinusoid with a frequency of between 100 Hz and 500 Hz via routine optimization as a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art has not been disclosed (see MPEP 2144.05). Trammell constructs its keys using harmonic partials (see Trammell Fig 3 and [0017]), and harmonics within the range are present in the typical human voice; thus one with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using the claimed frequency range.
Claim 17: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein the extension signal results from the product of a parameterizable function, said parameterizable function preferably being amplitude- and/or frequency- modulated. ([0011]: the audio identifiers vary by amplitude and frequency)
Trammell does not teach the extension signal resulting from the product of a parameterizable function and of an observation window function.
However, Bitzer does teach the extension signal resulting from the product of a parameterizable function and of an observation window function. ([0069]: application of a windowing function to an audio signal)
Claim 18: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein:
the maximum amplitude of the extension signal is less than or equal to the maximum amplitude of the identifying voice signal, and/or the maximum length of said at least one extension signal is less than or equal to a third of the total length of the complete signal. (Fig 3: example of additive key on relative scale falling within claim’s amplitude range)
Claim 19: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein:
the maximum amplitude of the extension signal is less than or equal to 80% of the maximum amplitude of the identifying voice signal, and/or the maximum length of said at least one extension signal is equal to 20% of the total length of the complete signal. (Fig 3: example of additive key on relative scale falling within claim’s amplitude range)
Claim 21: Trammell discloses a method for recording a particular speaker via a computer which comprises a computer memory, the method comprising:
acquiring a recorded voice signal produced by the particular speaker, ([0017]: acquire input voice)
determining an extension signal, ([0017]: create audio spikes using additive synthesis)
generating a recorded complete signal which comprises said recorded voice signal and the extension signal, ([0017]-[0018]: combining input voice with key)
determining a reference voice signature in accordance with the recorded complete signal, ([0017]-[0018]: creating a voice identification signature with the combined signals)
storing said reference voice signature in said memory so as to be associated with the particular speaker. ([0016]-[0018]: reference voice signature is stored in signature storage)
Trammell does not teach adding a first portion of the predetermined extension signal before the recorded voice signal and a second portion of the predetermined extension signal after the recorded voice signal such that the at least one reference voice signature includes the recorded voice signal between the first and second portions of the predetermined extension signal.
However, Bitzer does teach adding a first portion of the predetermined extension signal before the recorded voice signal and a second portion of the predetermined extension signal after the recorded voice signal such that the at least one reference voice signature includes the recorded voice signal between the first and second portions of the predetermined extension signal. (Figure 25: signal lengthening).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to affix a signal in between two portions of an extension signal because it facilitates the temporal lengthening of the original signal (see Bitzer [0001]-[0002], [0099]).
Claim 23: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Bitzer further teaches the method wherein the first and second portions of the predetermined extension signal are identical. (Figure 1, [0068]: signal extensions are repetitious)
Claim(s) 13, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trammell in view of Bitzer as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Himmelstein (US 20140156283 A1).
Claim 13: Elements of parent claim 12 are addressed above. Trammell further teaches the method wherein:
in the generating, the computer generates at least as many complete signals as there are speakers in said set, each complete signal comprising said identifying voice signal and one of said extension signals recorded in said memory, ([0017]-[0018]: The spikes are specific to each user, and the input voice combined with the spikes is compared with a stored signature which was constructed the same way)
Trammell and Bitzer do not explicitly teach:
in the constructing, the computer constructs an identifying voice signature for each complete signal, in the comparing, the computer compares each identifying voice signature with each reference voice signature recorded in the memory in order to deduce a score therefrom,
in the identifying, the particular speaker is identified taking into account the deduced scores.
However, Himmelstein does disclose in the constructing, the computer constructs an identifying voice signature for each complete signal, in the comparing, the computer compares each identifying voice signature with each reference voice signature recorded in the memory in order to deduce a score therefrom, ([0034]-[0035]: the voiceprint is compared to each stored voiceprint template using bitwise XNOR)
in the identifying, the particular speaker is identified taking into account the deduced scores. ([0034]-[0035]: the voiceprint is a match if the number of matching bits exceeds a threshold)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to compare two voice signatures with a score as it allows the system to determine a match on a particular scale of strictness (see Himmelstein [0026]).
Claim 20: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell and Bitzer do not explicitly teach the method wherein the identifying voice signal comprises a number of syllables which is less than or equal to four.
However, Himmelstein does teach the identifying voice signal comprising a number of syllables which is less than or equal to four (Table 1, Row 6: “Sunny Day” command is three syllables; [0008]: upon receiving a voice command, match the command with a voiceprint template)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to accept an identifying signal comprising four or less syllables as taught by Himmelstein in the combination with Trammell because it allows a user to create a shorter custom command (see Himmelstein [0027]).
Claim 22: Elements of parent claim 11 are addressed above. Trammell and Bitzer do not teach a motor vehicle comprising:
a passenger compartment,
means for acquiring a voice signal produced by a particular speaker who is located in the passenger compartment;
However, Himmelstein does teach a motor vehicle comprising: a passenger compartment, (claim 1: automobile; Fig 1: components of a vehicle)
means for acquiring a voice signal produced by a particular speaker who is located in the passenger compartment, (Fig 1 Internal Microphone 52)
a computing unit which is programmed to implement identification method as claimed in claim
11. (Fig 1: Voice Recognition and Synthesis Unit 44, Micro-Computer 30)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Trammell’s method into an automobile as disclosed by Himmelstein because it facilitates easier control of a vehicle as well as improved security (see Himmelstein [0003]).
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 ALVIN ISKENDER whose telephone number is (703)756-4565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, HAI PHAN can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/ALVIN ISKENDER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654