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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Retnamma (US 11032415 B1, hereinafter “Retnamma”).
Regarding claim 1, Retnamma teaches a method for authenticating audio, comprising: sampling audio captured by microphones from different devices (such as microphones from devices 102, 104, 106), wherein the audio captured by the microphones is captured based on sound produced by at least one audio source; (see Col. 1, line 14-59: verifying authenticity of an audio recording)
generating an audio channel per audio source for the audio captured by the audio source; (see Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Col. 5, line 50-65: audio recording 310 to capture audio, there is one audio channel corresponding to the one microphone and one audio source in each of the multiple devices 102, 104 and 106 ).
generating a unique acoustic signature (UAS) for the at least one audio source by processing at least portions of the sampled audio of each audio source in order to create processed audio, wherein the UAS is a set of acoustical parameters representing acoustical properties of each of the at least one audio source; (see Col. 4, line 21-30: signature generator 112 generates identifier to connect audio signature generator 112 to a communication between two or more devices)
generating a hashing value based on the UAS and the audio channel per audio source; (see Col. 7, line 18-30: generate more than one hash)
and encoding the processed audio using the hashing value in order to generate encoded audio, wherein the encoded audio is authenticated using the hashing value and the UAS. (see Col.7, line 18-30, Col. 8, line 1-67: generate more than one hash from given sample at different starting offsets and look for at least one of the hash matches with stored hash to satisfy authenticity. The acoustic hash 620/628/636 can be encrypted to acoustic features).
Retnamma is silent about the one microphone in each of the various devices (such as device 102, 104 or 106) can be an array of microphones, wherein each audio channel is a portion of the sampled audio produced by a respective audio source of the at least one audio source-- the audio sample could be processed in various channels where each one could be corresponded to different source.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an array of microphones instead of one microphone could have been used in each of the various devices of Retnamma since that would have been determined by the designer’s preference/needs. The modified device of Retnamma would have inherently have a plurality of audio channels to capture corresponding audio sources when an array of microphones are used instead of only one microphone is used to capture audio signals from each audio source. No unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 2, Retnamma teaches transmitting the hashing value and the UAS to an authentication server, wherein the authentication server is configured to authenticate audio received from a device using the hashing value and the UAS. (see Fig. 1: transmitting the hashing value and the UAS to an authentication server, wherein the authentication server is configured to authenticate audio received from a device using the hashing value and the UAS)
Regarding claim 3, Retnamma teaches transmitting the encoded audio to the device. (see Claim 13, Col. 4, line 13-20: transmitting the audio communication to device)
Regarding claim 4, Retnamma teaches extracting a unique identifier of the array of microphones, wherein the hashing value is generated based further on the unique identifier of the array of microphones.
(see Col. 4 line 1-50: signature generator 112 can form part of communication server 110 to verify authenticity of recorded audio information. Audio code includes an acoustic hash that corresponds to previous audio sample in communication).
Regarding claim 5, Retnamma teaches generating a unique source identifier for each of the at least one audio source, wherein the hashing value is generated based further on the unique source identifier for each of the at least one audio source. (see Col. 4 line 1-50: signature generator 112 can form part of communication server 110 to verify authenticity of recorded audio information. Audio code includes an acoustic hash that corresponds to previous audio sample in communication).
Regarding claim 6, Retnamma is silent to the hashing of the UAS is non-reversible.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply hashing of the UAS is non-reversible to the teachings of Retnamma in order to securely ensure a unique value made periodically and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 7, Retnamma teaches the UAS is any of: an audio clip, a portion of an audio clip, an audio stream, and a portion of an audio stream. (see Col.2, line 60-66: audio segment is just a portion of the recorded material).
Regarding claim 8, Retnamma teaches the UAS is generated periodically. (see Col. 2, line 41-67: generated in time intervals).
Regarding claim 9, Retnamma is silent to the UAS includes at least one of: channel parameters of each audio source, directivity pattern of each audio source, and processed audio to raw audio correlation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include at least one of: channel parameters of each audio source, directivity pattern of each audio source, and processed audio to raw audio correlation for the UAS to the teachings of Retnamma in order to securely create a UAS and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitation is a claim directly corresponding to the method claim 1; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding claims 11-19, the claimed limitations are system claims directly corresponding to the method claims 1-9; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 1-9 as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8-12 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose "audio captured by an array of microphones ... based on sound produced by at least one source," as claimed. The Examiner does not disagree that Retnamma does not disclose an array of microphones are used, however, as pointed out in the rejection, although Retnamma teaches using one microphone in each of the various devices to capture audio signals (e.g., there is at least one microphone in each of various devices 102, 104 or 106 as shown in fig. 1 to capture audio signals from various sources), and Retnamma is silent about that the one microphone in each of these devices can be an array of microphones, wherein each audio channel is a portion of the sampled audio produced by a respective audio source of the at least one audio source-- the audio sample could be processed in various channels where each one could be corresponded to different source. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an array of microphones instead of one microphone could have been used in each of the various devices of Retnamma since that would have been determined by the designer’s preference/needs. The modified device of Retnamma would have inherently have a plurality of audio channels to capture corresponding audio sources when an array of microphones are used instead of only one microphone is used to capture audio signals from each audio source. No unexpected result is produced.
Applicant further argues Retnamma fails to disclose "generating an audio channel per audio source, ... wherein each audio channel is a portion of the sampled audio produced by a respective audio source," as claimed. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Retnamma clearly teaches generating an audio channel per audio source for the audio captured by the audio source; (see Fig. 3, Fig. 5, Col. 5, line 50-65: audio recording 310 to capture audio, there is one audio channel corresponding to the one microphone and one audio source in each of the multiple devices 102, 104 and 106 ).
Applicant further argues Retnamma fails to teach "generating a unique acoustic signature (UAS) for the at least one audio source ...,wherein the UAS is a set of acoustical parameters representing acoustical properties of each of the at least one audio source," as claimed. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Retnamma clearly teaches generating a unique acoustic signature (UAS) for the at least one audio source by processing at least portions of the sampled audio of each audio source in order to create processed audio, wherein the UAS is a set of acoustical parameters representing acoustical properties of each of the at least one audio source; (see Col. 4, line 21-30: signature generator 112 generates identifier to connect audio signature generator 112 to a communication between two or more devices)
Applicant further argues Retnamma fails to teach "encoding the processed audio using the hashing value in order to generate encoded audio wherein the encoded audio is authenticated using the hashing value and the UAS." The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Retnamma clearly teaches generating a unique acoustic signature (UAS) for the at least one audio source by processing at least portions of the sampled audio of each audio source in order to create processed audio, wherein the UAS is a set of acoustical parameters representing acoustical properties of each of the at least one audio source; (see Col.7, line 18-30, Col. 8, line 1-67: generate more than one hash from given sample at different starting offsets and look for at least one of the hash matches with stored hash to satisfy authenticity. The acoustic hash 620/628/636 can be encrypted to acoustic features).
Applicant further argues Retnamma fails to teach the claimed encoding step. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Retnamma clearly teaches generating a hashing value based on the UAS and the audio channel per audio source; (see Col. 7, line 18-30: generate more than one hash).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based
upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a
sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. Additionally, the motivation to
combine does not have to be the same as the applicant's. But so long as it takes into account only
knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of the reference may be bodily
incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the references make
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In Re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, (CCPA 1969); In re Richman 165
USPQ 509, (CCPA 1970); In re Beckum, 169 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1971); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ
385.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights