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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0042 -software object-- is misspelled as “software ebject”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (e.g., see paragraphs 0059, 0081, and 0083). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 222, 330, 350, 430, 450, 530, 550, 610, 630, 650, 670, 710, 810, 860, and 870. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 21 lacks reference labels for each of the components in order to clarify the meaning of the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with antecedent basis issues:
Claim 34:
In Lines 5-6 "elements of whisper communication" lack a referential modifier (e.g., the or said). Accordingly, it is unclear if this term should find antecedence in the first instance of the term in lines 2-3 or if applicant is attempting to introduce some additional instance. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, “elements of whisper communication" in lines 5-6 will be interpreted as --the elements of whisper communication--.
In Line 6, it is unclear what "it" is referencing, i.e., whether "it" refers to the replayed whisper communication or some other audio components. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase including "it" will be construed as --replaying the whisper communication for perception by a second user--.
Claim 35:
In Line 6, "the whisper sound replay device" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this limitation is referencing the prior "whisper sound reproduction device" or refers to some additional element. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, "the whisper sound replay device" will be construed as --the whisper sound reproduction device--.
Claim 36:
In Lines 1 and 2-3, "the lips video camera" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this limitation is referencing the prior “at least one lips video camera” or refers to some additional element. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, "the lips video camera" will be construed as --the at least one lips video camera--.
Claim 37:
In Lines 1-2, "the whisper sound replay device" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this limitation is referencing the prior "whisper sound reproduction device" or refers to some additional element. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, "the whisper sound replay device" will be construed as --the whisper sound reproduction device--.
Claim 38:
In Line 1, "the whisper sound replay device" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this limitation is referencing the prior "whisper sound reproduction device" or refers to some additional element. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, "the whisper sound replay device" will be construed as --the whisper sound reproduction device--.
Claim 39:
In Lines 1-2, "the lips video camera" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this limitation is referencing the prior “at least one lips video camera” or refers to some additional element. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, "the lips video camera" will be construed as --the at least one lips video camera--.
Claim 40:
In Lines 2-3, "the transmitted whisper communication" lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear whether this limitation is referencing the prior "transmitted signals" or refers to some additional element. For claim interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution, " the transmitted whisper communication " will be construed as -- the transmitted signals --.
For the alternative embodiment claim sets the following sets of claims feature common indefiniteness issues to those referenced above: Claims 41 and 48 contains issues similar to Claim 34, Claims 42 and 49 contain issues similar to Claim 35, Claims 43 and 50 contain issues similar to Claim 36, Claims 44 and 51 contain issues similar to Claim 37, Claims 45 and 52 contain issues similar to Claim 38, and Claims 46 and 53 contain issues similar to Claim 39.
The dependent claims also inherit the indefinite subject matter of their respective parent claims, and thus, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claimed limitations utilizing the structural placeholder “means” are mapped as follows for claim interpretation under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI):
Claim Limitation
Corresponding Structure in the Specification
a means for capturing elements of whisper communication expressed by a first user and converting the elements of whisper communication into signals suitable for transmission over a communication network
This limitation relates to computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation where "[t]he corresponding structure is not simply a general-purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.0041. See also MPEP 2181(II)(B). In this case the structure is a computer processor while the algorithm constitutes the process shown in Fig. 9B.
a means for transmitting the signals over the communication network
network adapter as described in Paragraph 0096
a means for receiving the signals and reconverting the signals into elements of whisper communication and replaying the whisper communication such that it can be perceived by a second user
Computer-Implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. In this case the structure is a computer processor while the algorithm constitutes the process shown in Fig. 9C.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: elements of means recited in claims 35, 42, and 49 are because each component of means is modified by structure thus overcoming the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 34, 41, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) without significantly more.
Independent claims 34 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims regard a process that, as drafted under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a organizing human activity by managing interactions between people, but for the recitation of network transmission processing and generic computer components (in the particular case of claim 48).
In regards to the process of claims 34 and 48, the claimed functionality could be practiced as managing an interaction with a person needing hearing assistance or by a chain of people relaying a private message when eventually removed from an audience under the BRI by:
Capturing elements of whisper communication expressed by a first user and (an interpreter listens to whispered speech and sees the person that is whispering);
receiving the signals and reconverting the signals into elements of whisper communication and replaying the whisper communication such that it can be perceived by a second user (the interpreter/middle person in a three person relay chain relays the whispered communication by raising their voice and clearly enunciating what was said); wherein the elements of whisper communication comprise sound information associated with phonemes of speech and image information of facial organs associated with phonemes of speech (see the above description where the interpreter hears speech comprising phonemes and sees visual pronunciation cues in the face of the first person in the sequence for repetition/relaying in a more intelligible manner).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Outside of the identified abstract idea, the claimed invention only includes generic computer components that amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an otherwise abstract idea using a computer and transmission over a network that amounts to mere data gathering for exchanging information. These addition components are used for their ordinary purposes (e.g., exchanging information and automating an otherwise human behavior in the form of communication) and have not been invented or improved by the applicant as currently claimed.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional generic computer components are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). Moreover, transmission over a network is well-known per Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Accordingly, claims 34 and 48 are not directed towards patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 41 contains many of the processing steps of claims 34 and 48, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Moreover, via the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for elements of these claim, some additional processing steps are involved that would not make claim 41 patent eligible. These steps include identifying a face as a visual understanding of a person talking, watching the initial speaker as they talk, understanding the phonemes spoken for relaying the message, and the last person in the chain hearing and extracting meaning from the repeated communication audio and enunciation.
The dependent claims have not been included in this rejection because they depend from claims 35, 42, and 49 that contain a particular combination of structural elements that render these dependent claims eligible under step 2A prong 2 and/or 2B of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 34-35, 37-40, 48-49, and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levitt (U.S. PG Publication: 2016/0111111 A1).
With respect to Claim 34, Levitt discloses:
A method comprising:
capturing elements of whisper communication expressed by a first user and converting the elements of whisper communication into signals suitable for transmission over a communications network (microphone that captures a speech input that is weak/low intensity transmission to a second communication device, Paragraphs 0037, 0086, 0094, 0185, 0200, and 0203-0204, and 0217 (discussing communication protocols); "Talker" and network communication between mobile devices in Fig. 1D; note that weak/low intensity sounds are an element of quiet/whispered speech);
transmitting the signals over the communication network (Paragraph 0086- “signals may be transmitted over a communication network 115 to a second communication device 110b”);
receiving the signals and reconverting the signals into elements of whisper communication and replaying the whisper communication such that it can be perceived by a second user (second communication device having a speech recognition aid (SRA) "receives signals from a communication device" and extracts/processes the communication to improve the intelligibility and/or sound quality of the weak elements in speech and rendered received optic/video signals on a display that include a speaker's face, Paragraphs 0080, 0086-0089, 0114, 0200, and 0203-0204); wherein the elements of whisper communication comprise sound information associated with phonemes of speech and image information of facial organs associated with phonemes of speech (weak speech sounds captured and reproduced correspond to "elements which convey meaning...referred to [as] phonemes," Paragraph 0078; conveyed video images for "visual cues" of a talker's face that would inherently include facial organs- skin, mouth, lips, etc., Paragraphs 0067, 0080, 0086, and 0114).
With respect to Claim 35, Levitt further discloses:
The method as defined in claim 34, wherein the capturing and converting is performed by means comprising at least one whisper sound microphone (microphone, Paragraphs 0037, 0094, and 0200) and at least one lips video camera (camera that captures the face that would inherently include the talker’s lips, Paragraphs 0011, 0067, 0084, 0094, 0114, and 0153); wherein the reconverting is performed by means comprising at least a whisper sound reproduction device (earphones, Paragraphs 0080 and 0089) and a lips display device (video display for the face image, Paragraphs 0089 and 0094); wherein the whisper sound microphone, the lips video camera, the whisper sound replay device and the lips display device are whisper features of a mobile telephone (implementation in mobile phones, Paragraphs 0067, 0086, 0114, and 0213; Fig. 1D, Element 110).
With respect to Claim 37, Levitt further discloses:
The method as defined in claim 35, wherein the whisper sound replay device is an extendable earphone fixedly attached to the mobile telephone (wired in-ear device including an earphone extending from a mobile phone, Paragraph 0067, 0087, and 0089; Fig. 1, Elements 105 and 110b).
With respect to Claim 38, Levitt further discloses:
The method as defined in claim 35, wherein the whisper sound replay device is a bone conduction device (vibrating devices used to "deliver speech cues" such as a "piezoelectric tactual transducer mounted in the ear mold of the SRA" wherein "vibrators, with a variable rate of vibration, may be used to encode vowels and vowel-like sounds," Paragraphs 0066, 0080, 0089, 0124, 0129, and 0187-0188; in this case such transducers would vibrate the bones of the ear to convey speech information and thus constitute a bone conduction device).
With respect to Claim 39, Levitt further discloses:
The method as defined in claim 35, wherein images from the lips video camera are processed to identify phonemes from the shape of the mouth of the first user (speech recognizer processes optical modality cues to recognize speech including phonemes/phonetics, Paragraph 0006, 0011, 0013, 0078, 0156, 0194, and 0207; note that optical information includes a captured user’s face comprised of lips, Paragraphs 0080, 0089, and 0207 (mentioning consideration of lip movement that would shape the mouth)).
With respect to Claim 40, Levitt further discloses:
The method as defined in claim 35, wherein the signals are equalized by digital filtering and sound mixing for disambiguation of the transmitted whisper communication (digital filtering as well as supplemental sound mixing/addition described in 0025, 0124, 0151, 0161, 0179, 0189 (discussing digital processing) to "increase intelligibility").
Claim 48 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment storing computer-executable instructions that carry out the method of claim 34, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Levitt teaches method implementation as a program stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (see multiple examples of non-transitory CRMs such as a computer memory, Paragraph 0222).
Claim 49 defines features that are directed towards components used at run-time when the program is executed, and thus, defines an intended use of the non-transitory computer-readable medium that does not limit the recited medium (e.g., it does not define another step carried out when the code is executed by one or more processors). In the interest of compact prosecution, however, it is noted that claim 49 recites subject matter similar to claim 35 and accordingly is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 51-52 define features that are directed towards components used at run-time when the program is executed, and thus, defines an intended use of the non-transitory computer-readable medium that does not limit the recited medium (e.g., it does not define another step carried out when the code is executed by one or more processors). In the interest of compact prosecution, however, it is noted that claims 51-52 recite subject matter respectively similar to claims 37-38 and accordingly are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 53-54 recite subject matter respectively similar to claims 39-40 and accordingly are rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 36 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt in view of Cassidy, et al. (U.S. Patent: 9,263,044).
With respect to Claim 36, Levitt teaches the method for the communication of weak speech whisper components using audio and video in claim 35. While Levitt teaches that the communication method utilizes microphones and cameras to capture weak user speech and associated speaking images, Levitt does not teach the particular arrangement of these components set forth in claim 36. Cassidy, however, discloses:
The method as defined in claim 35, wherein the lips video camera is located substantially near the at least one whisper sound microphone; wherein the lips video camera substantially captures only a mouth area of the first user when the mobile telephone is held in a normal position with a top portion of the phone close to the first user's ear and a bottom portion of the phone close to the first user's mouth (sound microphone (106 or 706) located substantially near a camera that focuses on the user's lips (lower camera 104 or 204), Col. 3, Lines 54-62; See also the illustrations of 1C and 2B that shows the lips video camera aimed at the mouth area of a user when the phone is head in a normal position as claimed).
Levitt and Cassidy are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio-visual speech analysis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the audio-visual component arrangement taught by Cassidy in the communication system taught by Levitt to provide a predictable result of components that are exclusively focused on speech-indicative information (i.e., audible sounds and speech producing features such as the mouth, lips, tongue, and teeth) so as to increase intelligibility of weak speech communications.
Claim 50 defines features that are directed towards components used at run-time when the program is executed, and thus, defines an intended use of the non-transitory computer-readable medium that does not limit the recited medium (e.g., it does not define another step carried out when the code is executed by one or more processors). In the interest of compact prosecution, however, it is noted that claim 50 recites subject matter similar to claim 36 and accordingly is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 41-42, and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt in view of Ghovanloo, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2014/0342324 A1).
With respect to Claim 41, Levitt discloses:
An electronic device for whisper communication, comprising:
a means (structure: processor, Paragraphs 0213 and 0215) for capturing elements of whisper communication expressed by a first user and converting the elements of whisper communication into signals suitable for transmission over a communication network (algorithm: receiving weak speech signals at a microphone and facial images at a video camera and sending such information to a network transmitter Paragraph 0011, 0080, 0087, 0094, and 0153; digital filtering as well as supplemental sound mixing/addition described in 0025, 0124, 0151, 0161, 0179, 0189 (discussing digital processing) to "increase intelligibility") ;
a means for transmitting the signals over the communication network (structure: network transmitter, Paragraphs 0086-0087 and 0217; Fig. 1D showing a mobile phone having a network communicator (110a));
a means (structure: processor, Paragraphs 0213 and 0215) for receiving the signals and reconverting the signals into elements of whisper communication and replaying the whisper communication such that it can be perceived by a second user (algorithm: second communication device having a speech recognition aid (SRA) "receives signals from a communication device" and extracts/processes the communication to improve the intelligibility and/or sound quality of the weak elements in speech and rendered received optic/video signals on a display that include a speaker's face, Paragraphs 0080, 0086-0089, 0114, 0200, and 0203-0204; Receiving and processing/extracting a received audio-optical communication according to a communication protocol, Paragraph 0023, 0082, 0086, and 0217; output using earphones and displays, Paragraph 0089);
wherein the elements of whisper communication comprise sound information associated with phonemes of speech and image information of facial organs associated with phonemes of speech (weak speech sounds captured and reproduced correspond to "elements which convey meaning...referred to [as] phonemes," Paragraph 0078; conveyed video images for "visual cues" of a talker's face that would inherently include facial organs- skin, mouth, lips, etc., Paragraphs 0067, 0080, 0086, and 0114).
Per the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Levitt does not teach the algorithm of tracking identified facial features and identification of phonemes in a capture and converting means. Ghovanloo, however, discloses tracking a lip/mouth region of the face and using this information and identified phonemes to align/correlate captured speech and images (Paragraphs 0083, 0086, 0089, and 0133).
Levitt and Ghovanloo are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio-visual speech analysis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the lip tracking and phoneme correlation taught by Ghovanloo to provide a predictable result of having information at a receiver that can be used to synchronize the audio-visual communication described in Levitt (Paragraph 0097).
Claim 42 contains subject matter similar to Claim 35, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 44-47 recite subject matter respectively similar to claims 37-40 and accordingly are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levitt in view of Ghovanloo, et al. and further in view of Cassidy, et al.
With respect to Claim 43, Levitt in view of Ghovanloo teaches the method for the communication of weak speech whisper components using audio and video in claim 42. While Levitt teaches that the communication method utilizes microphones and cameras to capture weak user speech and associated speaking images, Levitt in view of Ghovanloo does not teach the particular arrangement of these components set forth in claim 36. Cassidy, however, discloses:
The lips video camera is located substantially near the at least one whisper sound microphone; wherein the lips video camera substantially captures only a mouth area of the first user when the mobile telephone is held in a normal position with a top portion of the phone close to the first user's ear and a bottom portion of the phone close to the first user's mouth (sound microphone (106 or 706) located substantially near a camera that focuses on the user's lips (lower camera 104 or 204), Col. 3, Lines 54-62; See also the illustrations of 1C and 2B that shows the lips video camera aimed at the mouth area of a user when the phone is head in a normal position as claimed).
Levitt, Ghovanloo, and Cassidy are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in audio-visual speech analysis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to utilize the audio-visual component arrangement taught by Cassidy in the communication system taught by Levitt in view of Ghovanloo to provide a predictable result of components that are exclusively focused on speech-indicative information (i.e., audible sounds and speech producing features such as the mouth, lips, tongue, and teeth) so as to increase intelligibility of weak speech communications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ogawa, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2022/0020390 A1)- teaches a system for communicating via whispered audio by transcribing the voice and labeling the resulting text (Paragraphs 0084-0093).
Ito, et al. ("Analysis and recognition of whispered speech," 2003)- teaches a system for the recognition of whispered speech based on acoustic characteristics (Abstract and Section 3, Pages 141-145).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655