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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that Endo does not disclose a system comprising in response to obtaining the conversation data, extract a keyword from the voice information. According to the broad description of the specification, Endo teaches a keyword extracting device 100D extracts a keyword of conversation by detecting exciting reaction of a person who listened to speech sound. The keyword extracting device 100D can extract a keyword of conversation by means of a feature of speech response captured as excitement, such as a laughing voice or a clap of the hands, without preparations; namely, advanced anticipation of a keyword used in conversation and registration of the anticipated keywords in a database, and the like (p. 0120, 0064, 0079). Therefore, Endo teaches extracting a keyword based on conversation and not only facial expression.
Regarding the 101, Applicants argue that the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activities using network monitors and analyzing networks packets. Such data is not explicitly recited in the present claims. The human mind can extract and generate data, as explained below. In addition, performing a speaker classification can be done by a user labeling who is talking, performing speech recognition and converting the data to text, can be done by a user recognizing what is being said and transcribing the data, and extracting keywords, can be done by a user recognizing certain data (claim 11). Classifying a speaker and recognizing speech in parallel, can be done by a user simultaneously listening to someone speech and label who is speaking (claim 12). Selecting a keyword and presenting the data can be done by a human (claim 13). Therefore, the 101 rejection remains.
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 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of authenticating a user, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, obtaining conversation data including voice information on a plurality of people (can be done by someone listening to people speak), in response to obtaining the conversation data, extracting a keyword from the voice information (can be done by a user keyword spotting), from the voice information, extracting a first feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to characteristics of a voice when the keyword is said (can be done by a user obtaining additional information from the conversation) and generating information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity (can be done by user combining the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as obtaining data, making determination, encouraging a user and extracting data, which is all mental processing non-statutory. Furthermore, determining an identification of a user by performing face authentication (can be done by a user looking at someone and identifying the user), and based on the determined identification, presenting a keyword corresponding to the user (can be done by the user analyzing what is identified and showing keywords), linking a meeting application with an information generation application (can be done by a user making a connection with a meeting application and information) and receiving data transmitted by a terminal comprising a meeting application (can be done by a user receiving data, by a generic processor). In addition, performing a speaker classification can be done by a user labeling who is talking, performing speech recognition and converting the data to text, can be done by a user recognizing what is being said and transcribing the data, and extracting keywords, can be done by a user recognizing certain data (claim 11). Classifying a speaker and recognizing speech in parallel, can be done by a user simultaneously listening to someone speech and label who is speaking (claim 12). Selecting a keyword and presenting the data can be done by a human (claim 13).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Endo et al. (PGPUB 2009/0150155), hereinafter referenced as Endo.
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Endo discloses an information processing system, methos and medium, hereinafter referenced as a system comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (p. 0050); and
at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to (p. 0050):
obtain conversation data including voice information on a plurality of people (conversation between speaker A and B; p. 0053);
in response to obtaining the conversation data, extract a keyword from the voice information (fig, 9, element 105C with extract keyword of conversation on the basis of a pattern of a pitch that is a feature of a speech response; p. 0064, 0079, 0120);
from the voice information, extract a first feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to characteristics of a voice when the keyword is said, from the voice information (time; fig, 10 with p. 0099); and
generates information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity (fig. 10 with correlate speech with speaker; p. 0044-0045, 0102-0103).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Sontag et al. (PGPUB 2011/0047605), hereinafter referenced as Sontag.
Regarding claim 2, Endo discloses a system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein obtaining a second feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice of at least one of the plurality of people and determining whether or not it is possible to identify a speaker who says the keyword from the first feature quantity, by comparing the first feature quantity with the second feature quantity.
Sontag discloses a system comprising:
obtain a second feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice of at least one of the plurality of people (verify identity; p. 0025); and
determine whether or not it is possible to identify a speaker who says the keyword from the first feature quantity, by comparing the first feature quantity with the second feature quantity (verify identity; p. 0025-0027), for assisting with protecting information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, to authenticate users based upon biometric authentication parameters.
Regarding claim 3, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Sontag discloses a system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
present information that encourages a user who requests a predetermined process for the conversation data, to say the keyword for which the information for collation/verification is generated (prompt the user to state a pass phrase; p. 0021-0023);
extract a third feature quantity that is a feature quantity related to a voice of the user, from content of utterance/speaking of the user (extract data; p. 0021-0023; and
determine whether or not to permit the user to perform the predetermined process, on the basis of a comparison result between the first feature quantity associated with the keyword that the user is encouraged to say and the third feature quantity (determine whether user is authenticated or not; p. 0021-0023).
Regarding claim 4, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Sontag discloses a system wherein the information for collation/verification is generated for a plurality of keywords (pass phrase; p. 0021-0023), and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to present information that encourages the user to say a part of the keywords, and presents information that encourages the user to say another of the keywords when it is determined that the user is not permitted to perform the predetermined process (prompt user; p. 0021-0023).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Mamkina et al. (USPN 10,032,451), hereinafter referenced as Mamkina.
Regarding claim 8, Endo discloses the system as described above, but does not specifically teach determining an identification of a user by performing face authentication, and based on the determined identification, presenting a keyword corresponding to the user.
Mamkina discloses a system comprising generating information for collation/verification, by associating the keyword with the first feature quantity (column 21, line 42 – column 22, line 26) comprising:
determining an identification of a user by performing face authentication, and based on the determined identification, presenting a keyword corresponding to the user (column 2, lines 24-48, column 6, line 29 – column 7, line 31 and column 28, line 21 – column 29, line 33 and column 33, lines 16-64), to provide a variety of ways for recognizing a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, to assist with performing more accurate user recognition.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Lo et al. (PGPUB 2014/0240098), hereinafter referenced Lo.
Regarding claim 9, Endo discloses the system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein to obtain the conversation data comprises: linking a meeting application with an information generation application.
Lo discloses a system comprising linking a meeting application with an information generation application (p. 0023), to assist with meeting room resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, for controlling meeting room resources in an automated manner.
Regarding claim 10, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Lo discloses a system wherein to obtain the conversation data comprises: receiving data transmitted by a terminal comprising a meeting application (p. 0021, 0023, 0033).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view Basu et al. (PGPUB 2008/0300872), hereinafter referenced as Basu.
Regarding claim 11, Endo disclosed a system as described above, but does not specifically teach a system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
perform a speaker classification process to add a label corresponding to a speaker to one or more sections of the conversation data;
perform a speech recognition process to convert the conversation data into text data; and
extract the keyword from the text data by using a result of the speaker classification process to distinguish speakers.
Basu discloses a system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
perform a speaker classification process to add a label corresponding to a speaker to one or more sections of the conversation data (speaker label/tag to detect speaker change; p. 0057, 0071-0073);
perform a speech recognition process to convert the conversation data into text data (transcribe; p. 0071); and
extract the keyword from the text data by using a result of the speaker classification process to distinguish speakers (keywords; p. 0073), to provide boundaries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, to enhance efficiencies.
Regarding claim 13, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Basu discloses a system wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
select a plurality of keywords such that a combined utterance length of the plurality of keywords is sufficient to identify a speaker (specific number of keywords; p. 0071-0073; and
jointly present the selected plurality of keywords to a user (number of keywords displayed).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo in view Basu and in further view of Basson et al. (PGPUB 2003/0125940), hereinafter referenced as Basson.
Regarding claim 12, Endo in view Basu discloses a system as described above, but does not specifically teach wherein the speaker classification process and the speech recognition process are performed simultaneously in parallel.
Basson discloses a system wherein the speaker classification process and the speech recognition process are performed simultaneously in parallel (p. 0036), to increase speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as described above, to provide robust speech processing and increased biometric security.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Maybury discloses automated segmentation, information extraction summarization and presentation of data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights