DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Non-Final Office Action from 05 November 2025, the Applicant has filed a response on 27 January 2026.
The Examiner objected to claim 1, 5, 8 and 15 for minor informalities. The claims have been amended to rectify the issues raised then. The claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues against the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as it pertains to the limitation of ‘replacing, by a voice replacer component …’ whereby the Examiner applied the Ganong, III et al. reference. While the Applicant does not directly give argument points for this reference, the Applicant does indicate that the reference does not teach the newly-added amendment. The Examiner refers to the applied [0056] paragraph of the Ganong II et al. reference which does indeed provide the replacement of certain names, or medicine dosage, with terms that are clearly semantically and contextually related, thereby still teaching of the claim limitation as previously presented.
The Examiner however admits that this reference does fail to teach the amendment to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be addressed by their current presentation in the following section.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong, III et al. (US 2023/0395063 A1: hereafter — Ganong) in view of Dotan (US 9,507,947 B1) further in view of Lahr et al. (US 2023/0386446 A1: hereafter — Lahr) and further in view of Parkinson (US 2022/0108692 A1).
For claim 1, Ganong discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
transcribing, by a speech-to-text component, the voice in the audio file into text (Ganong: [0047] – [0048] — transcribing audio that contain sensitive content into text);
identifying, by a natural language processing and identification component, sensitive data in the text (Ganong: [0048] — identifying sensitive content in the text), wherein identifying sensitive date comprises:
replacing, by a voice replacer component, the identified sensitive data with synthetic data that is semantically and contextually meaningful [[in a manner so that the background audio is preserved, wherein a generative model is leveraged to recreate sound information of the same duration]], wherein the synthetic data is voiced using the synthetic voice (Ganong: [0056] — replacing the identified sensitive portions of the text with other information, such as “James Alan Alexander” being replaced with “Jason Aaron Alexander” and also “Oct. 12 1987” being replaced with “Nov. 12 1997” (the replacements are both semantically and contextually meaningful to the overall text)); and
outputting a new audio file with the sensitive data replaced by the synthetic data (Ganong: [0057] — merging using TTS in order to be able to modify the speaker’s voice and the content of the input speech signal; FIG. 4 Part 408 — ‘generating an obscured speech signal based upon, at least in part, the input speech signal and the obscured transcription of the input speech signal’).
The reference of Ganong fails to provide teaching for the particular parsing of text that leads to identifying sensitive data contained in the text.
The reference of Dotan is now introduced to teach this as:
extracting, by a signal separator component, a voice from an audio file (Dotan: Col 3 lines 6–10 — extracting voice content from audio; Col 5 lines13–17 — processor for performing the required task);
parsing the text and identifying the sensitive data contained within the text (Dotan: Col 4 lines 8–11 — parsing text and labelling words as sensitive data).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Dotan which parses text to identify sensitive data after having extracted voice from an audio signal, with the teaching of Ganong which outputs a new audio file with sensitive data replaced by synthetic data, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of properly separating text words in obtained transcription text so as to be able to properly classify the text as containing sensitive content. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan provides teaching for replacing sections determined to contain sensitive data with a synthesised voice, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further teaches of identifying a synthetic voice that matches the voice from the audio file.
The reference of Lahr is however introduced to teach this as:
identifying, by a voice locator component, a synthetic voice that matches the voice from the audio file (Lahr: [0064] — modifying and providing a synthesised voice that matches a recorded one).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Lahr which obtains synthetic voice that matches that in a stored audio, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan which teaches replacing sections determined to contain sensitive data with a synthesised voice, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of presenting a matching flow of speech between the user’s utterances and the synthesised speech. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr provides teaching for the replacement of an identified sensitive data portion with synthetic data that is semantically and contextually meaningful, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides that performing this act in a manner that the background noise is preserved, along with the generation of sound information of the same duration.
The reference of Parkinson is however introduced to teach this as:
replacing, by a voice replacer component, the identified sensitive data with synthetic data that is semantically and contextually meaningful in a manner so that the background audio is preserved, wherein a generative model is leveraged to recreate sound information of the same duration, wherein the synthetic data is voiced using the synthetic voice (Parkinson: [0018] — a situation whereby audio data is removed by performing audio scrubbing, resulting in the removal of the voice command while maintaining the background environment audio data; [0038] — maintaining background environment audio data; [0045] — a machine learning model being used to provide filler audio that has its duration equal to a duration of the utterance).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Parkinson which applies a machine learning model to generate an audible replacement for audio of a similar duration to audio that was removed while maintaining the background environmental audio, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr which provides the replacement of an identified sensitive data portion with synthetic data that is semantically and contextually meaningful to the removed sensitive data, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of ensuring uninterrupted continuous audio that attempts to maintain the originality of the input audio, giving the listener a seamless feeling while listening to the modified audio. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson discloses the computer-implemented method, further comprising:
merging the new audio file with the audio file to generate an updated audio file (Ganong: [0057] — merging using TTS in order to be able to modify the speaker’s voice and the content of the input speech signal; FIG. 4 Part 408 — ‘generating an obscured speech signal based upon, at least in part, the input speech signal and the obscured transcription of the input speech signal’); and
outputting the updated audio file, wherein the updated audio file comprises audio with the sensitive data replaced with synthetic data voice by the synthetic voice (Ganong: [0057] — merging using TTS in order to be able to modify the speaker’s voice and the content of the input speech signal; FIG. 4 Part 408 — ‘generating an obscured speech signal based upon, at least in part, the input speech signal and the obscured transcription of the input speech signal’).
As for claim 8, computer system claim 8 and method claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Ganong in [0020] provides teaching for one or more processors, storage devices, and instructions that can be executed by the processors. Accordingly, claim 8 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As for claim 14, computer system claim 14 and method claim 7 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 14 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 7.
As for claim 15, computer program product claim 15 and method claim 1 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Ganong in [0020] provides teaching for instructions stored on storage devices and executed by the processors. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong (US 2023/0395063 A1) in view of Dotan (US 9,507,947 B1) further in view of Lahr (US 2023/0386446 A1) and further in view of Parkinson (US 2022/0108692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0394258 A1: hereafter — Chen).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Chen is now introduced to teach as the computer-implemented method, further comprising:
receiving an audio file with editable speech content, wherein audio file editing utilizes an input query, configuration, and a knowledge base (Chen: [0026] — the user says ‘when is the pink concert’ which is an audio as an input query that is determined to pertain to a Music domain (as the configuration), and the occurrence of ‘pink’ gets edited to be replaced with ‘P!nk’ as this would be present in the Music knowledge base; [0037] — replacing a token in a transcription based on a determined natural language domain).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson provides teaching for identifying sensitive information in a transcript, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for editing audio content utilising an input query, a configuration and a knowledge base. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Chen is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Chen which provides teaching for editing speech transcripts that constitute a query based on applying knowledge database of a domain configuration, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson which teaches identifying sensitive information, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of being able to identify and replace sensitive information in speech content with replacement words that would fit the domain configuration of the speech input. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 9, computer system claim 9 and method claim 2 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2.
As for claim 16, computer program product claim 16 and method claim 2 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong (US 2023/0395063 A1) in view of Dotan (US 9,507,947 B1) further in view of Lahr (US 2023/0386446 A1) and further in view of Parkinson (US 2022/0108692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Matthews et al. (US 10,529,336 B1: hereafter — Matthews).
For claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Matthews is now introduced to teach as the computer-implemented method, further comprising:
tagging and categorizing an original user’s speech signal, transcript, and/or sensitive words (Matthews: Col 2 lines 57–65 — detecting patterns of words in a text representation that indicate sensitive information of a customer (teaching of the tagging of and categorising as sensitive information, within a transcript)); and
marking the tagged and categorized sensitive words in the text with a timestamp associated with a location of the sensitive words in the audio file (Matthews: Col 3 lines 3–5 — an identified timestamp that corresponds to sensitive information, identified in the metadata of the audio block).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson provides teaching for identifying sensitive information in a transcript, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for tagging a transcript and marking the tagged sensitive words with a timestamp of its location in the audio file. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Matthews is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Matthews which provides a timestamp location of sensitive data within and audio file, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson which teaches identifying sensitive information, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of being able to quickly access the sensitive information within the audio file. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 10, computer system claim 10 and method claim 3 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 10 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 3.
As for claim 17, computer program product claim 17 and method claim 3 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 3.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong (US 2023/0395063 A1) in view of Dotan (US 9,507,947 B1) further in view of Lahr (US 2023/0386446 A1) and further in view of Parkinson (US 2022/0108692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fernandez Guajardo et al. (US 11,900, 914 B2: hereafter — Fernandez).
For claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Matthews is now introduced to teach as the computer-implemented method, further comprising:
identifying, within a manifold of a pre-trained generative adversarial network (GAN) that synthetizes the voice, the synthetic voice that matches the voice from the audio file, wherein the synthetic voice that matches the voice from the audio file is determined based on predetermined metrics (Fernandez: Col 3 lines 42–50 — voice synthesis model being generated using a GAN, wherein a discriminator model of the GAN is generated based on the voice of the user (indicating that matches are to be made to fit the voice of the user from an audio file); Col 6 lines 9-25 — generating voice content selected as a voice synthesis model from a set (manifold) of voice synthesis models (a manifold of pre-trained GANs) that correspond to the user, the synthesis also including configuration parameters to instruct the voice synthesis model (teaching of the synthesis making a match based on predetermined metrics)).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson provides teaching for replacing sensitive sections of audio with synthetic data, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the selection of a voice-matching synthetic voice from a manifold of pre-trained GANs. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Matthews is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Fernandez which provides selecting a voice synthesis model to use for a particular situation, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson which teaches replacing sensitive sections of audio with synthetic data, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of replacing the sensitive sections with synthetic voice that would sound just like the voice of the user, causing a proper flow to occur between non-sensitive sections and sensitive sections of the audio file. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 11, computer system claim 11 and method claim 4 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 4.
As for claim 18, computer program product claim 18 and method claim 4 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 18 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong (US 2023/0395063 A1) in view of Dotan (US 9,507,947 B1) further in view of Lahr (US 2023/0386446 A1) and further in view of Parkinson (US 2022/0108692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of YAMAMOTO (US 2016/0086622 A1).
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Matthews is now introduced to teach as the computer-implemented method, further comprising:
dynamically tunning, by a voice tuner component, the synthetic voice, wherein the synthetic voice is dynamically tuned until the synthetic voice is within a predetermined threshold of acceptance of similarity associated with the voice from the audio file (Yamamoto: [0056] — the processing of inputting synthetic speech to a speech analyser is repeated (dynamic tuning) so as to compare the similarity of the synthetic speech to the target reference speech (voice from the audio file) until a certain threshold is reached to determine the closeness of the synthetic speech to the reference speech).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr provides teaching for replacing sensitive sections of audio with synthetic data, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for dynamically adjusting the synthetic voice so that it is within a predetermined threshold of acceptance of similarity with the voice from the audio file. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Yamamoto is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Yamamoto which provides adjusting the synthetic speech to be close to a reference speech up to a certain threshold, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr which teaches replacing sensitive sections of audio with synthetic data, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of replacing the sensitive sections with synthetic voice that would sound similar enough to the voice of the user, causing a proper flow to occur between non-sensitive sections and sensitive sections of the audio file. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 12, computer system claim 12 and method claim 5 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 5.
As for claim 19, computer program product claim 19 and method claim 5 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 5.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganong (US 2023/0395063 A1) in view of Dotan (US 9,507,947 B1) further in view of Lahr (US 2023/0386446 A1) and further in view of Parkinson (US 2022/0108692 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Allen et al. (US 2018/0276402 A1: hereafter — Allen).
For claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated but the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson fails to disclose the limitations of this claim, for which the reference of Allen is now introduced to teach as the computer-implemented method, further comprising:
utilizing the sensitive data from the text to identify replacements for the sensitive data within a knowledge base (Allen: [0039] — ‘if a SSN is included in a cell, a user might be presented with options to replace the digits in the SSN with ‘X’ characters while leaving intact a data scheme of the SSN, i.e. leaving in the familiar “3-2-4”’ showing identification of the replacement of the sensitive content; [0064] — ‘[t]he obfuscation rules may be used for replacing an internal codename with a marketing approved name, used to obfuscate personally identifiable information (PII) with boilerplate names’ (teaching of replacements from a knowledge base)); and
outputting a list of replacement options for the identified sensitive data (Allen: [0064] — the user is presented with an option to replace sensitive data with safe text).
The combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson provides teaching for replacing sensitive sections of audio with synthetic data, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for using the sensitive data to identify their replacements, which are output as replacement options. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Yamamoto is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the known teaching of Allen which provides utilising the sensitive data to find its replacements, with the teaching of the combination of Ganong in view of Dotan further in view of Lahr and further in view of Parkinson which teaches replacing sensitive sections of audio with synthetic data, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of providing a user with replacement options suitable to replace the sensitive sections, such that the user would be able to personally select the best-fitting replacement terms to go with the sentence while still obfuscating the sensitive information. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 13, computer system claim 13 and method claim 6 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 13 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 6.
As for claim 20, computer program product claim 20 and method claims 6 and 7 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Accordingly, claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard 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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
04/07/2026