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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 16-20 are rejected under § 101
Claim 16 recites:
an electronic device operating method, comprising: (a) receiving and storing first and second uttered phrases from first and second external devices, respectively ;(b) sensing simultaneous portions of the first and second uttered phrases ; (c) generating a synthesized voice for combining the simultaneous portions ; and (d) outputting the synthesized voice with a combination of the simultaneous portions to a user
Steps b and c are the mental activity since a human can see that the two people are talking simultaneously and human can speak their parts in their voice
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least system. Thus, the claim is a machine , which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Steps b and c encompasses mental activity since human can differentiate when the two people are speaking at the same time and utter what each of the two people said. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “sensing and generating” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites (a) receiving and storing first and second uttered phrases from first and second external devices, respectively and (d) outputting the synthesized voice with a combination of the simultaneous portions to a user
” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 18-20, human can connect different words people spoke and also modify the utterance based on speech etc.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
And
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determination.
Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuraba ( US 20090150151) and further in view of Aihara ( US 20200028955)
Regarding claim 1, Sakuraba teaches an electronic device comprising: a communication circuitry; and a processor operatively connected to the communication circuitry, wherein the processor is configured to: receive and store a first uttered voice related to at least a first external device and a second uttered voice related to a second external device ( speech related to the first and/or second microphone, Fig. 3) ; transmit at least one of the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice having a first reproduction speed to a device when a single utterance is sensed based on the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice (audio is outputted as a normal data, Para 0060) ; and convert a reproduction speed of at least a portion of a synthesized voice where at least a first overlapping utterance of the first uttered voice and at least a second overlapping utterance of the second uttered voice are continuously connected to each other to a second reproduction speed different from the first reproduction speed ( speech rate conversion of the overlapping speech, silence is compressed, Para 0065-0068, Fig 4a-c) and transmit the synthesized voice to when simultaneous utterances are sensed based on the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice ( transmitting data, Fig 1, Para 0025-0028)
Sakuraba does not explicitly teach transmit at least one of the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice having a first reproduction speed to at least one of the first external device and the second external device when a single utterance and transmit the synthesized voice to at least one of the first external device and the second external device when simultaneous utterances are sensed based on the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice
However, Aihara teach transmit at least one of the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice having a first reproduction speed to at least one of the first external device and the second external device when a single utterance (transmitting the voice data to one or more of the devices where the user uttered the voice, Fig 27) and transmit the synthesized voice to at least one of the first external device and the second external device when simultaneous utterances are sensed based on the first uttered voice and the second uttered voice ( When generating the synthetic voice data (conversation file), the voice data synthesizer 1302 of the cloud 1300 may adjust the speech timings of voice data of respective users so that the speeches of respective users do not overlap, Para 0230, Fig 27-31)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Sakuraba to further include the concept of Aihara before effective filing date to improve the user experience so the person can hear the recording on their devices when the user wants to hear the recording of a particular individual ( Para 0230, Aihara)
Regarding claim 2, Sakuraba as above in claim 1, teach wherein the first reproduction speed is a speed substantially equal to an utterance speed of a speaker( t7 onwards is a normal rate, Para 0060) , and the second reproduction speed includes a speed higher than the first reproduction speed ( compressed silence, Para 0060)
Regarding claim 3, Sakuraba as above in claim 1, teach wherein the processor is configured to: identify a first utterance time period related to the first overlapping utterance and a second utterance time period related to the second overlapping utterance; and determine the second reproduction speed such that the synthesized voice is reproduced within a time period smaller than a sum of the first utterance time period and the second utterance time period ( compressed silence and hence the reproduction speed is smaller, Para 0060-0065)
Regarding claim 4, Sakuraba as above in claim 1, teach wherein the processor is configured to convert a reproduction speed of at least one of at least a portion of the first overlapping utterance and at least a portion of the second overlapping utterance into the second reproduction speed ( different conversion rate, Para 0060-0065. Fig 4A-C)
Regarding claim 5, Sakuraba as above in claim 1, teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the synthesized voice with a silence period added between the first overlapping utterance and the second overlapping utterance ( compressing the silence time and hence the silence time is added or remained)
Regarding claim 6, Sakuraba as above in claim 1, teach , wherein the processor is configured to: obtain a portion of the first uttered voice corresponding to a certain range based on the first overlapping utterance as a first additional utterance; obtain a portion of the second uttered voice corresponding to a certain range based on the second overlapping utterance as a second additional utterance; and use the first additional utterance and the second additional utterance to generate the synthesized voice (timing as the range for overlapping speeches Fig 4A-C)
Regarding claim 9, rejection analogous to claim 1, are applicable.
Regarding claim 10, rejection analogous to claim 2, are applicable.
Regarding claim 11, rejection analogous to claim 3, are applicable.
Regarding claim 12, rejection analogous to claim 4, are applicable.
Regarding claim 13, rejection analogous to claim 5, are applicable.
Regarding claim 14, rejection analogous to claim 6, are applicable.
Regarding claim 15, rejection analogous to claim 8, are applicable.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuraba ( US 20090150151) and further in view of Aihara ( US 20200028955) and further in view of Church ( US 20190370283 )
Regarding claim 7, Sakuraba modified by Aihara as above in claim 1, does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: receive information related to the second reproduction speed from the first external device or the second external device; and convert the synthesized voice based on the received information
However, Church teach receive information related to the second reproduction speed from the first external device or the second external device; and convert the synthesized voice based on the received information ( receiving a set of user-selectable content-related parameters, Para 0032; wherein the parameter includes the speed of the recording, Para 0008 and synthesizer synthesizes the voice, Para 0079)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Sakuraba and Aihara to further include the concept of Church before effective filing date to make the system more user friendly by letting the user decide how they want to receive an information ( Para 0090, Church)
Regarding claim 8, Sakuraba modified by Aihara as above in claim 1, does not teach wherein the processor is configured to convert the synthesized voice such that a certain level of pitch is maintained for the first overlapping utterance and the second overlapping utterance
However, Church teach wherein the processor is configured to convert the synthesized voice such that a certain level of pitch is maintained for the first overlapping utterance and the second overlapping utterance ( playing back speech comprises adjusting the pitch of the sound such that it remains substantially the same as the pitch of the original recording at the time it was created. In embodiments, a speech synthesizer may be use to modify the played back record, such that a pitch is adjusted to a target pitch that equals the pitch of the original recording., Para 0079)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Sakuraba and Aihara to further include the concept of Church before effective filing date to make the system more user friendly by keeping the original pitch of the recording ( Para 0090, Church)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Sakuraba ( US 20090150151)
Regarding claim 16, Sakuraba teaches an electronic device operating method, comprising: receiving and storing first and second uttered phrases from first and second external devices, respectively ( input section receives the voice, Para 0038-0040) ; sensing simultaneous portions of the first and second uttered phrases ( adds the voices picked up by plural different microphones, Para 0039, Fig 2, Fig 4a-c) ; generating a synthesized voice for combining the simultaneous portions ( added voices) ; and outputting the synthesized voice with a combination of the simultaneous portions to a user ( voice output/played back, The signal processing section 4 further includes a speaker identification section 42 for identifying a speaker who has made a speech based on the combined digital audio data. The signal processing section 4 further includes: a simultaneous speech section identification section 43 for identifying a section during which a plurality of speakers made speeches at the same time as a simultaneous speech section; a storage section 44 for temporarily storing digital audio data generated during the simultaneous speech section; and an arranging section 45 for arranging pieces of digital audio data in order of playback, Fig 2, Fig 4a-c, Para 0036-0040, 0045)
Regarding claim 17, Sakuraba as above in claim 16, teach wherein the outputting comprises connecting the first and second uttered phrases ( added voice, Para 0036-0040)
Regarding claim 18, Sakuraba as above in claim 16, teach wherein the outputting comprises connecting portions of the first uttered phrases with portions of the second uttered phrase ( fig 4a-4c, overlapping voices are added together )
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuraba ( US 20090150151) and further in view of Kurata ( US 20160086599)
Regarding claim 19, Sakuraba as above in claim 16, teach the generating comprises generating the synthesized voice for combining the simultaneous portions as modified; and the outputting further includes outputting the synthesized voice with a combination of the simultaneous portions as modified to a user ( synthesized speech and output the modified speech, Fig 2, 4a-c, Para 0036-0040)
Sakuraba does not explicitly teach wherein: the outputting comprises executing natural language processing with respect to the first and second uttered phrases and modifying the first and second uttered phrases in accordance with results of the natural language processing
However, Kurata teaches the outputting comprises executing natural language processing with respect to the first and second uttered phrases and modifying the first and second uttered phrases in accordance with results of the natural language processing ( The language model was a word 3-gram. The smoothing algorithm used was the Modified Kneser-Ney algorithm. The original language model 142 was trained using the transcripts of the respective channels of the stereo sound 112 provided as training data. Also, the transcript-attached stereo sound 112 provided as training data was aligned forcefully, transcribed portions overlapping on the time axis were discriminated, all the detected portions were replaced with the overlap words, and a language model transcript 134 corresponding to the synthesized monaural sound was created. The overlap-word-containing language model 138 was trained using the language model transcript 134 as training data. The original language model 142 and overlap-word-containing language model 138 were integrated with each other at a weight ratio of 8:2 between the original language model 142 and overlap-word-containing language model 138 and a final language model 106 was obtained, Para 0064-0065, 0131, 0143)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Sakuraba to further include the concept of Kurata before effective filing date to prevent recognition error ( Para 0005, 0049, Kurata)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuraba ( US 20090150151) and further in view of Sun ( US 20180279063 )
Regarding claim 20, Sakuraba does not explicitly teach delaying the outputting in accordance with user instructions.
However, Sun teach delaying the outputting in accordance with user instructions ( the user interface 606d also includes a play mode control 3608, which a user can toggle between linear (input time) playback and non-linear (scheduled output time) playback, Para 0767)
It would have been obvious having the teachings of Sakuraba to further include the concept of Sun before effective filing date to give user an option for the playback ( Para 0767, Sun)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujita (US 20220254352 ) discloses processing, using a neural network, the portion of the audio input, to determine voice activity of the plurality of speakers during the portion of the audio input, the neural network being trained using reference audio data and reference diarization data corresponding to the reference audio data, the reference diarization data indicating timing associated with voice activity of individual reference speakers relative to timing of the reference audio data; determining, based on the neural network being used to process the portion of the audio input, a diarization output associated with the portion of the audio input, the diarization output indicating individual voice activity of the plurality of speakers; and providing the diarization output, to indicate the individual voice activity of the plurality of speakers during the portion of the audio input.
Kakemura (US 20230239406) discloses a plurality of users carry their respective mobile communication terminals, and the voice of utterance of one of the users input to his mobile communication terminal is broadcast to the mobile communication terminals of the other users. The communication system includes a communication control section including a group calling control section configured to perform first processing of broadcasting utterance voice data received from one of the mobile communication terminals to the other mobile communication terminals and second processing of chronologically accumulating the result of utterance voice recognition from voice recognition processing on the received utterance voice data as a communication history and controlling text delivery such that the communication history is displayed on the mobile communication terminals in synchronization, and an individual calling control section configured to transmit utterance voice data only to a specified user included in a communication group in which the broadcast is performed. The communication control section is configured to identify a user participating in an individual calling mode that utterance voice data being transmitted only to the specified user during the broadcast of the first processing and to perform, after end of the individual calling mode, processing for notifying the identified user that the broadcast was performed during the individual calling mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richa Sonifrank whose telephone number is (571)272-5357. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 7AM - 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, Phan Hai 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.
/Richa Sonifrank/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights