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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acceptance unit configured to accept …”, “a temporary setting parameter selection unit configured to select …”, “a recognition unit configured to recognize …”, “a parameter selection unit configured to select …”, “an instruction information acceptance unit configured to accept …”, and “an output unit configured to output …” in claims, 1, 4-5, 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Choi et al. (USPG 2005/0065793, hereinafter Choi)
Regarding claim 1, a speech recognition device, comprising:
an acceptance unit configured to accept input of speech information (col. 14, lines 18-22 and/or figure 1, receiving speech input);
a parameter storage unit storing a plurality of parameters for setting a speech recognition model (col. 14, lines 30-36, “The baseline acoustic speech model has a plurality of acoustic parameters …”; these parameters can be adapted using speech parameters of a target speaker; also see col. 6, lines 36-53);
a temporary setting parameter selection unit configured to select temporary setting parameters to be temporarily set from the plurality of parameters based on narrowed information (col. 14, lines 37-60; also see col. 6, lines 36-53);
a recognition unit configured to recognize the speech information using the speech recognition model stored in association with the selected temporary setting parameters (figure 1, the baseline speech recognition model includes parameters, and they are stored in the system for initial use and/or for adaptation using speech parameters of a new speaker; col. 14, lines 37-60; “In step 840, the acoustic model adaptation manager store changes to a set of acoustic parameters corresponding to acoustic parameters from the baseline acoustic speech model that have an estimated statistical change. The changes are stored as acoustic parameter adaptation data linked to the first speaker, such as in a user profile” and “…statistical changes to acoustic parameters of the baseline acoustic speech model that improve speech recognition accuracy of the acoustic model, such as when executing speech recognition on utterances”.
Goel fails to explicitly disclose, however, Choi teaches a parameter selection unit configured to select any of the temporary setting parameters based on information indicating a recognition result of the recognized speech information, the information including reliability of the recognition result, wherein the plurality of parameters includes at least a plurality of acoustic setting parameters for setting an acoustic model, or a plurality of grammar setting parameters for setting a grammar model (process in figures 5-6 and/or paragraphs 52-57; adaptation of speech recognition model parameters based on reliability of recognition result).
Since Goel and Choi are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of adapting recognition model based on reliability of recognition result. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claim 4, Goel further discloses the speech recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the parameter selection unit is configured to select, among the temporary setting parameters, a temporary setting parameter that leads to the highest reliability being highest (col. 14, lines 37-60, “In step 830, the acoustic model adaptation manager estimates--using a maximum a posteriori probability process--statistical changes to acoustic parameters of the baseline acoustic speech model that improve speech recognition accuracy of the acoustic model, such as when executing speech recognition on utterances” and “…statistical changes to acoustic parameters of the baseline acoustic speech model that improve speech recognition accuracy of the acoustic model, such as when executing speech recognition on utterances”).
Regarding claim 6, Goel further discloses the speech recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the narrowed information includes speaker information for identifying a speaker who produces speech sounds (col. 15, lines 51-67, “in response to receiving a spoken utterance of the first speaker as speech recognition input, the system modifies the baseline acoustic speech model using the acoustic parameter adaptation data linked to the first speaker”).
Regarding claim 7, Goel further discloses the speech recognition device according to claim 6, wherein the narrowed information is acquired by a learned model for inferring the speaker information (col. 15, lines 6-23 and lines 40-50, “if an administrator desires the 100 best parameter changes to be stored, then the acoustic model adaptation manager adjusts parameter movement computation to yield 100 parameters having movement” for that particular speaker).
Regarding claim 9, Goel further discloses the speech recognition device according to claim 1, further comprising a history information storage unit storing history information of the temporary setting parameters selected by the parameter selection unit (col. 15, lines 51-61, storing selected parameters), wherein the narrowed information includes the history information stored in the history information storage unit (col. 15, line 62 to col. 16, line 7, adapting recognition models using stored parameters specific to the speaker producing the utterance).
Regarding claim 10, Goel further discloses the speech recognition device according to claim 1, further comprising a setting parameter storage unit storing the temporary setting parameters selected by the parameter selection unit (col. 15, lines 51-61, storing selected parameters), wherein the recognition unit is configured to recognize the speech information based on the temporary setting parameters stored in the setting parameter storage unit (col. 15, line 62 to col. 16, line 7, adapting recognition models using stored parameters specific to the speaker producing the utterance).
Regarding claim 11, Goel further discloses the speech recognition device according to claim 10, further comprising an instruction information acceptance unit configured to accept instruction information for instructing the setting parameter storage unit not to store the temporary setting parameters (col. 13, lines 29-60, “knob” to control numbers of parameters to select; also see col. 15, lines 41-56, “ if an administrator desires the 100 best parameter changes to be stored, then the acoustic model adaptation manager adjusts parameter movement computation to yield 100 parameters having movement” suggests that the administrator can set to zero best parameter movement commutation to yield zero parameter having movement to be stored), wherein the setting parameter storage unit is configured to, in response to the instruction information acceptance unit does not accept the instruction information during a predefined acceptance period, store the temporary setting parameters selected by the parameter selection unit (col. 13, lines 29-60, “knob” to control numbers of parameters to select; col. 14, lines 37-60, not instruction is needed according to this embodiment).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Choi, and further in view of Huo (USPG 2011/0257976, hereinafter Huo).
Regarding claim 5, Goel fails to explicitly disclose, however, Huo teaches the speech recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the parameter selection unit is configured to select, among the temporary setting parameters, a temporary setting parameter that leads to the reliability equal to or higher than a predefined threshold value (figure 5, steps 512-518 and/or paragraphs 58-63, selecting features to adapt model until a certain criterion is satisfied or the likelihood score meeting/exceeding a certain threshold value).
Since Goel and Huo are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of adapting recognition model based reliability score meeting or exceeding a certain threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Choi, and further in view of Federico et al. (USPN 11545134, hereinafter Federico).
Regarding claim 8, Goel fails to explicitly, however, Federico teaches the speech recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the narrowed information includes either time information for determining an acceptance time at which the acceptance unit accepts the speech information (figure 4, timestamp indicating when the speech was accepted and duration) or location information for specifying a location where a microphone is installed.
Since Goel and Federico are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of including timestamp indicating when the speech was accepted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel in view of Choi, and further in view of Lee et al. (USPN 2011/0301953, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Goel fails to explicitly disclose, however, Lee teaches the speech recognition device according to claim 10, further comprising an output unit that outputs information indicating that the setting parameter storage unit stores the temporary setting parameters when the setting parameter storage unit stores the temporary setting parameters (paragraph 74-75, setting flag to 1).
Since Goel and Lee are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of setting a flag indicating execution of model adaptation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Delcroix et al. (USPG 2021/0193161, hereinafter Delcroix) teach a method of training acoustic models. Kadambe et al. (USPG 2004/0230420) teach a method of adapting speaker model. These two references are considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
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 HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656