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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding arguments on pages 5-7 of the Remarks, Examiner notes that the argued improvement is itself abstract. Speaker identification itself is a mental process, while the limitations of the claims directed to reducing degradation influence are also characterized as abstract. The limitations that are additional to those characterized as abstract do not integrate the limitations into a practical application or constitute significantly more.
Regarding arguments on pages 7-8 of the Remarks, Examiner notes that rather than being a particular machine, a microphone would be considered a generic component, as there is no detail about how the microphone is particular to the task at hand. In other words, the microphone is simply used to perform the operation of the method.
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 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Using the subject matter eligibility test from page 74621 of the Federal Register Notice titled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” a two-step process is performed. Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, claims 1-6 are directed to a device, which is a machine or an article of manufacture; claim 7 is directed to a method, which is a process; and claim 8 is directed to a computer-readable recording medium, which is a machine or an article of manufacture. Step 2A (part 1 of the Mayo test), using the guidance from pages 50-57 of the Federal Register Vol. 84 No. 4 from Monday, January 7, 2019, requires applying a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, determining if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. In this case, claim 1 recites obtaining a score and performing correction on the score, which is are mental processes or mathematical calculations. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. In this case, additional limitations of obtaining data are mere extrasolution activity, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B (part 2 of the Mayo test) requires analyzing the claims to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, obtaining a score and performing correction on the score are mental processes or mathematical calculations, which are abstract ideas. For example, similarity between two voices can be graded and scored or adjusted by a human listening to them, or can have the signals compared and adjusted by mathematical operations. Additional limitations of obtaining data is mere extrasolution activity, while use of a processor, microphone, and computer-readable recording medium or memory are generic computing components, and neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or constitutes significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, processing the score and creating distributions are mental processes or mathematical calculations, which are abstract ideas without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 3, performing scaling processing on the scores is a mental process or a mathematical calculation, which are abstract ideas without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the specific equation is a mathematical calculation, which is an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 5-6, the limitations are further clarifications of the above abstract ideas.
The limitations of the claims, taken alone, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Applicable case law cited in the Federal Register includes, but is not limited to: Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355-56, Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Benson, 409 U.S. at 63.
See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," dated June 25, 2014, and the Federal Register notice titled "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility" (79 FR 74618).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavares (US 7,788,101 B2), in view of Lesso et al. (US 2018/0040323 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lesso.
Regarding claim 1, Tavares teaches:
An identification device comprising:
a microphone that obtains voice data (Fig. 5 element 502, col. 3 lines 28-58, col. 6 lines 18-44, where the user's voice is used as the input biometric data, and Fig. 7 element 724, col. 7 lines 20-45, where a microphone is used);
a processor (Fig. 7 element 702, col. 7 lines 20-45, where a processor is used); and
a non-transitory memory having stored thereon a program (Fig. 7 element 706-708, col. 7 lines 20-45, where memory is used), which causes the processor to:
obtain, through speaker identification processing, a score indicating a degree of similarity between the voice data obtained by the microphone and voice data on an utterance of a predetermined speaker (Fig. 5 element 504, col. 6 lines 28-44, where a match score is calculated between the obtained feature vectors and the reference template to identify the speaker);
perform correction processing on the score to reduce an influence of a degradation in identification performance of the speaker identification processing on the score (Fig. 5 element 506-508, col. 6 lines 18-44, col. 7 lines 8-19, where a correction factor is applied to the match scores that are near the boundary line and depending on the reliability of the user's biometric to increase likelihood of acceptance or identification); and
output the corrected score, when determining that the voice data obtained by the microphone has a feature that causes a degradation in the identification performance (Fig. 5 element 506-508, col. 6 lines 18-44, col. 7 lines 8-19, where a correction factor is applied to the match scores that are near the boundary line and depending on the reliability of the user's biometric to increase likelihood of acceptance or identification), wherein
Tavares does not teach:
the feature that causes a degradation in the identification performance of the speaker identification processing includes:
a feature that a level of noise contained in the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is higher than or equal to a threshold; or
a feature that a reverberation period of the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is longer than or equal to a threshold.
Lesso teaches:
the feature that causes a degradation in the identification performance of the speaker identification processing includes:
a feature that a level of noise contained in the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is higher than or equal to a threshold (para [0084], where speaker recognition cannot be performed when the noise is above a certain threshold level); or
a feature that a reverberation period of the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is longer than or equal to a threshold (where another limitation is chosen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tavares by using the noise threshold of Lesso (Lesso para [0084]) in the biometric authentication of Tavares (Tavares col. 6 lines 18-27), as noise beyond a threshold level will prevent accurate speech recognition (Lesso para [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Tavares in view of Lesso teaches:
The identification device according to claim 1, wherein
in the correction processing, the processor processes the obtained score to make a distribution of scores, each being the obtained score for two voice data on a same speaker with the feature, approximate to a distribution of scores, each being the obtained score for two voice data without the feature indicating a same speaker (Tavares Fig. 6, col. 6 lines 28-44,53-65, where the adjusted match score is plotted in the density function graph, interpreted as the distribution of scores, where points above the line correspond to imposters or different speakers, while those below the line correspond to the same speaker).
Regarding claim 7, Tavares teaches:
An identification method comprising:
obtaining voice data by a microphone (Fig. 5 element 502, col. 3 lines 28-58, col. 6 lines 18-44, where the user's voice is used as the input biometric data, and Fig. 7 element 724, col. 7 lines 20-45, where a microphone is used);
obtaining, through speaker identification processing, a score indicating a degree of similarity between the voice data obtained by the microphone and voice data on an utterance of a predetermined speaker (Fig. 5 element 504, col. 6 lines 28-44, where a match score is calculated between the obtained feature vectors and the reference template to identify the speaker); and
performing correction processing on the score to reduce an influence of a degradation in identification performance of the speaker identification processing on the score and outputting the corrected score, when determining that the voice data obtained by the microphone has a feature that causes a degradation in the identification performance (Fig. 5 element 506-508, col. 6 lines 18-44, col. 7 lines 8-19, where a correction factor is applied to the match scores that are near the boundary line and depending on the reliability of the user's biometric to increase likelihood of acceptance or identification), wherein
the feature that causes a degradation in the identification performance of the speaker identification processing includes:
a feature that a level of noise contained in the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is higher than or equal to a threshold; or
a feature that a reverberation period of the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is longer than or equal to a threshold.
Lesso teaches:
the feature that causes a degradation in the identification performance of the speaker identification processing includes:
a feature that a level of noise contained in the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is higher than or equal to a threshold (para [0084], where speaker recognition cannot be performed when the noise is above a certain threshold level); or
a feature that a reverberation period of the voice in the voice data obtained by the microphone is longer than or equal to a threshold (where another limitation is chosen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tavares by using the noise threshold of Lesso (Lesso para [0084]) in the biometric authentication of Tavares (Tavares col. 6 lines 18-27), as noise beyond a threshold level will prevent accurate speech recognition (Lesso para [0084]).
Regarding claim 8, Tavares in view of Lesso teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a computer to execute the identification method according to claim 7 (Tavares col. 9 line 35 - col. 10 line 9, where a computer readable medium is used).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of Tavares, Lesso, and Harmse do not teach the limitations of the claims. Specifically, while Tavares does teach scaling of scores, neither reference teaches that the scaling is performed to convert a range of scores from the third representative value to both a second and first representative values, where the third representative value corresponds to a matching score between different speakers while the second and first representative values correspond to matching scores between the same speaker, in combination with the other limitations. Hence, none of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination thereof, teaches the combination of limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0312336 A1 para [0063] teaches identifying a speaker depending on a SNR; US 2017/0287490 A1 para [0020] teaches an adaptive speaker recognition threshold determined based on the SNR.
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 BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0685. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/BRYAN S BLANKENAGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights