DETAILED ACTION
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.
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 05/08/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the modification of Nalluri in view of Neuneker would render any combination inoperable, and that the combination of the references are fundamentally incompatible. Examiner disagrees. Nalluri's authentication method relies on spectral characteristics of continuous speech. However, this does not render the combination inoperable. Methods such as cepstral coefficients, i-vectors, and x-vectors are able to analyze voice samples over time periods, and do not require a voice sample that is uninterrupted to perform recognition. Nalluri's authentication method is based on a cosine similarity satisfying a threshold between the enrollment and transformed voice samples, and does not require that the characteristics are the exact same. Therefore, using the methods of Nalluri over short time frames to compare to a reference voice print could satisfy the authentication threshold. Furthermore, applying the known modulation technique of Neuneker in conjunction with the known voice authentication method of Nalluri is an obvious combination according to their established functionalities.
Applicant argues that the dynamic nature of Neuneker's authentication codes would require constant retraining of Nalluri's machine learning model to accommodate each new gap configuration which directly contradicts Nalluri's static enrollment based training approach. Examiner disagrees. A POSITA could supplement the enrollment voice of Nalluri with Neuneker's use of the authentication code prior to storing the enrollment voice instead of completely replacing the authentication method of Nalluri. Furthermore, constant retraining of a machine learning model using target data is known to POSITA, and would only be needed to completely replace the authentication method of Nalluri.
Applicant argues that Nalluri's target voice from a pool of preexisting voices is not the same as using the auditory authentication to generate a unique key. Nalluri's authentication teaches the comparison of an enrollment voice and a transformed voice. Nalluri does not teach the generation of the unique key. Neuneker teaches the generation and storage of the unique key to modulate the voice of the user (Neuneker: see Col 1 lines 65-67 - Col 2 lines 1-5).
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 1-6, 8-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nalluri et al. (US 2025/0030685) (hereinafter Nalluri) in view Bhimanaik et al. (U.S. 11,011,178)(hereinafter Bhimanaik).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Nalluri teaches a memory to store modulated voice data (Nalluri: see Fig. 3 item 340; Page 9 paragraph 0067 lines 18-22, “In some examples, the voice transformation circuitry 240 stores the enrollment voice for the account in the user authentication database 340 with other information associated with the account (e.g., a username, a password, etc.) for later retrieval during account access attempts”);
an auditory authentication manager implemented at least partially in hardware and configured to cause the computing device to: modulate an auditory input received as an account access request to generate a modulated auditory input (Nalluri: see Page 2 paragraph 0028 lines 1-5, During account enrollment/service registration, a user provides a voice input to be utilized as a baseline for user authentication. Examples disclosed herein adjust the voice input to generate an enrollment voice to associate with the account/service; Page 4 paragraph 0038 lines 6-10, “In this example, the user interface circuitry 210 receives inputs from the user indicative of the user requesting to sign up for an account and/or service”);
compare the modulated auditory input to the stored modulated voice data; and authenticate the auditory input for the account access request based at least in part on comparison of the modulated auditory input to the modulated voice data (Nalluri: see Page 9 paragraph 0069 lines 1-20, The service provider circuitry 300 of FIG. 3 includes the voice authentication circuitry 320 to determine whether a user is authorized to access the user-specific account based on the enrollment voice associated with the account and the transformed voice generated by the voice transformation circuitry 240 for the account access attempt. For example, the voice authentication circuitry 320 can determine whether the transformed voice matches the enrollment voice for the account to which the user device 110 requests access. The voice authentication circuitry 320 can identify the enrollment voice associated with the account via the user authentication database 340 based on other account information provided in association with the access attempt. Further, the voice authentication circuitry 320 can compare voice-specific features of the transformed voice to voice-specific features of the enrollment voice associated with the account/service subscription to determine whether the transformed voice is a product of a voice input from the same user that enrolled the account and a voice transformer that produced the enrollment voice).
However, Nalluri does not generate a unique key maintained for use by the auditory authentication manager to modulate auditory input for authentication of account access requests.
Nevertheless, Neuneker-which is in the same field of endeavor- teaches generate a unique key maintained for use by the auditory authentication manager to modulate auditory input for authentication of account access requests (Neuneker: see Col 4 lines 1-8, “The programming of the authentication code ascertaining module 118 to determine the authentication code 120 corresponding to the specified time period 114 may be based on synchronization of the modulating device 108 and the authentication code ascertaining module 118 with respect to the specified code 112 and the authentication code 120. The authentication codes 116 may be stored in a repository 122 of the authentication codes 116”; Col 6 lines 39-41, “The processor 302 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions 308 to analyze the signal 104 to ascertain the specified code 112 for a specified time period 114”; Col 3 lines 28-36, “The specified time period 114 may also represent a time duration during which the specified code 112 is valid for authenticating the user 106. Thus, outside of the specified time period 114, the specified code 114 would be invalid for authenticating the user 106. Further, a number of the specified time periods may be increased and/or a time duration associated with the specified time periods may be reduced to increase a security level associated with authentication of the user 106”).
Nalluri and Neuneker are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Nalluri’s authentication method with Neuneker’s use of a specified code to determine the modulation of voice input. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to utilize well known technologies such as watermarking to prevent replay attacks by embedding a value unknown to an adversary and extracting that value on authentication for validation.
Regarding claim 2, Nalluri teaches the auditory authentication manager is a voice biometrics authentication system configured to authenticate a user who provides the auditory input as the account access request; and the modulated voice data is based on an initial auditory input previously received as provided by the user the auditory authentication manager is a voice biometrics authentication system configured to authenticate a user who provides the auditory input as the account access request (Nalluri: see Page 9 paragraph 0069 lines 7-10; Page 16 paragraph 0106 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Nalluri teaches the memory is configured to store personally identifiable information associated with the user and the modulated voice data (Nalluri: see Page 16 paragraph 0099 lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 4, Nalluri teaches an enrollment feature of the voice biometrics authentication system includes recording, via a user interface on a mobile device, the initial auditory input that is stored as the modulated voice data (Nalluri: see Page 2 paragraph 0028 lines 1-3; Page 15 paragraph 0095 lines 11-13; Page 3 paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 18 Nalluri and Bhimanaik teach the modulated voice data is assigned the unique key usable by the auditory authentication manager to authenticate the auditory input for the account access request (Neuneker: see Col 3 lines 17-33, “The signal analysis module 102 is to analyze the signal 104 to ascertain the specified code 112 for a specified time period 114…The specified time period 114 may also represent a time duration during which the specified code 112 is valid for authenticating the user 106. Thus, outside of the specified time period 114, the specified code 114 would be invalid for authenticating the user 106”). Motivation to combine Nalluri and Neuneker in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 19 Nalluri and Neuneker teach modulate voice characteristics of the auditory input according to the unique key (Neuneker: see Col 2 lines 60-67, Col 3 lines 1-13, “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the modulating device 108 may include any type of modulating device that adds, for example, a gap, or a plurality of gaps to a phrase 110 spoken by the user. For example, assuming that the phrase 110 spoken by the user 106 is “hello”, the modulating device 108 may add gaps of 1 ms, 10 ms, 15 ms, and 50 ms at different predetermined points during the phrase “hello”. The location and/or duration of the gaps may represent a specified code 112 as disclosed herein. The specified code 112 may represent a pattern that includes a plurality of gaps inserted in another signal of an unmodulated voice of the user 106. The another signal may represent a signal between the phrase 110 spoken by the user 106 and the modulating device 108. According to another example, the modulating device 108 may add a number of digits that correspond to the specified code 112. For example, the specified code 112 may include eight digits such as “12573678”. Thus, the specified code 112 may represent a pattern that includes a plurality of digits inserted in another signal of an unmodulated voice of the user 106. According to an example, the digits may be generated by an open authentication (OATH) token”) . Motivation to combine Nalluri and Neuneker in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Nalluri teaches recording an initial auditory input as provided by a user prior to the access request; and modulating the initial auditory input that is stored as the modulated voice data for subsequent comparison (Nalluri: see Page 2 paragraph 0028 lines 1-15)
Regarding claim 10, Nalluri teaches the authenticating the auditory input for the access request includes authenticating the user who provides the auditory input of the access request (Nalluri: see Page 9 paragraph 0069 lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 14, Nalluri and Neuneker teach a processor coupled with a memory that stores modulated voice data and a unique key applied to generate the modulated voice data (Neuneker: see Col 6 lines 6-10, “The hardware may include a processor 302, and a memory 304 (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium) storing machine readable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform the instructions of the block diagram 300”)
an auditory authentication manager implemented at least partially by the processor and configured to: receive an access request as an auditory input to access a user account that includes at least one of personally identifiable information or confidential user information (Nalluri: see Page 4 paragraph 0038 lines 3-10; Page 16 paragraph 0099 lines 11-21);
modulate the auditory input of the access request to generate a modulated auditory input (Nalluri: see Page 2 paragraph 0028 lines 1-5); and
authenticate the auditory input for the access request based at least in part on comparison of the modulated voice data (Nalluri: see Page 3 paragraph 0029; Page 9 paragraph 0069 lines 1-20) and the modulated auditory input that is modulated with the unique key (Neuneker: see Col 3 lines 1-5, “The specified code 112 may represent a pattern that includes a plurality of gaps inserted in another signal of an unmodulated voice of the user 106. The another signal may represent a signal between the phrase 110 spoken by the user 106 and the modulating device 108”). Motivation to combine Nalluri and Neuneker in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Nalluri teaches the auditory authentication manager is configured to authenticate a user who provides the auditory input as the access request; and the modulated voice data is based on an initial auditory input previously received as provided by the user (Nalluri: see Page 9 paragraph 0069 lines 7-10; Page 16 paragraph 0106 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 16, Nalluri teaches the access request is received via a user interface on a mobile device of the user (Nalluri: see Page 3 paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Nalluri teaches an enrollment feature of the auditory authentication manager includes recording, via the user interface on the mobile device, the initial auditory input that is the stored modulated voice data (Nalluri: see Page 2 paragraph 0028 lines 1-3, Page 15 paragraph 0095 lines 11-13, Page 3 paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
Claims 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nalluri in view of Neuneker, as applied to claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-19 above, and further in view of Fiedler et al. (US 11,341,573) (hereinafter Fiedler).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, Nalluri and Neuneker teach the invention detailed above.
However, Nalluri and Neuneker fail to teach authenticate the auditory input for the account access request based at least in part on a context of the auditory input as associated with personally identifiable information associated with a user who provides the auditory input, the context of the auditory input being at least one of a financial context, a banking context, or a healthcare context.
Nevertheless, Fiedler-which is in the same field of endeavor- teaches authenticate the auditory input for the account access request based at least in part on a context of the auditory input as associated with personally identifiable information associated with a user who provides the auditory input, the context of the auditory input being at least one of a financial context, a banking context, or a healthcare context (Fiedler: see Col 6 lines 42-50, “In some implementations, a behavior pattern of the user can be developed based on user interactions with the service provider. In some examples, user behavior (a dynamic factor) can be used to profile the user in view of the behavior pattern. In some implementations, the behavior pattern can be used to identify anomalous behavior (e.g., customer normally trades particular type of stock from home from 2-4 PM; current trade request is different type of stock, not from home, at 9 AM”).
Nalluri, Neuneker, and Fiedler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, speaking identification and verification techniques for multimodal and expert systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nalluri and Neuneker inventions with Fiedler to use the context of an authentication request as an authentication factor. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to differentiate the level of access in an authentication request which would make the improve the security of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhimanaik et al. (U.S. 11,011,178) teaches a method for detecting replay attacks in voice-based authentication systems utilizing the detection of a single use watermark signal applied to a user’s voice. The art teaches the storage and maintenance of the watermark signal for replay attack determinations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELAH JANAE MCFARLAND-BARNES whose telephone number is (571)272-5953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am until 4:00pm Central Time.
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, Lynn D Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/KELAH JANAE MCFARLAND-BARNES/ Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights