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 Amendment
The amendments filed February 20th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 12 have been amended. New claims 13 and 14 have been added. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 10-12 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: “voice conversion portion” in claims 1, 10, and 12; “voice registration portion” in claims 1-2 and 4-7; and “voice verification portion” in claims 1-2.
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.
The term “voice conversion portion” is being interpreted as referring to [0011] of the specification. The term “voice registration portion” is being interpreted as referring to [0014], [0015], [0018], [0025], and [0026] of the specification. The term “voice verification portion” is being interpreted as referring to [0014]-[0017] and [0030] of the specification.
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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura, Hiroshi (US Pat. Pub. NO. 2019/0392839 A1 hereinafter Fujimura), in view of Goodwin et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0193150 A1 hereinafter Goodwin).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimura discloses a voice authentication device for incorporation in an appliance including a voice conversion portion configured to convert voice from outside into a voice signal that is an electrical signal (Fujimura, Fig. 3; [0043]: "The speech acquiring unit 131 receives input of speech data, and generates and outputs a feature of the received speech (step S101)."), the voice authentication device comprising: a voice registration portion configured to learn a parameter of an AI model based on the voice signal (Fujimura, Fig. 3; [0043]: "The speech acquiring unit 131 receives input of speech data, and generates and outputs a feature of the received speech (step S101)."; [0045]: "Subsequently, the calculating unit 132 receives a feature generated by the speech acquiring unit 131, and calculates, using this feature and a neural network, a frame score and a keyword score (step S102). A frame score is appearance probability of a phoneme for each frame (acoustic score). A keyword score represents likelihood indicating whether the feature corresponds to a predetermined keyword to be detected."; [0056]: "when there is a keyword exceeding the threshold th (Yes at step S103), in other words, when the keyword w is detected, the extending unit 134 extends a feature with respect to the detected keyword section (step S104)."; [0060]: " the creating unit 135 creates a speaker model using a plurality of speaker features extended to a keyword section (step S105). For example, the creating unit 135 creates a 256-dimensional Gaussian distribution model having single Gaussian distribution with respect to each dimension of 256-dimensional vectors as a speaker model."); a voice verification portion configured to perform voice verification on input data based on the voice signal in accordance with an inference result yielded by the AI model having the learned parameter (Fujimura, Fig. 5; [0062]: "FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the recognition processing according to the first embodiment. The recognition processing is processing for recognizing a speaker of input speech using a created speaker model. In the recognition processing, a keyword to be detected is detected, and a speaker of the detected keyword is recognized."; [0064]: "When there is a keyword exceeding the threshold th (Yes at step S203), in other words, when the keyword w is detected, the recognizing unit 136 determines likelihood of a speaker using a created speaker model and outputs from an intermediate layer calculated at the time of detecting a keyword (step S204). For example, the recognizing unit 136 inputs outputs from an intermediate layer about all frames in a keyword detection section to Gaussian distribution, and defines the sum of output likelihood as likelihood of a speaker. In this case, the recognizing unit 136 may input outputs from an intermediate layer to Gaussian distribution for each frame so as to obtain likelihood, and may input, after once taking a mean of vectors of all frames, outputs from an intermediate layer to Gaussian distribution so as to obtain likelihood. The recognizing unit 136 outputs, for example, a speaker having the maximum likelihood of a speaker as a recognition result."); wherein the voice authentication is performed based on the voice registration portion and the voice verification portion (Fujimura, [0062]: "The recognition processing is processing for recognizing a speaker of input speech using a created speaker model."). However, Fujimura fails to expressly recite a voice registration portion configured to learn a parameter of an AI model based on the voice signal resulting from a keyword being uttered a plurality of times.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
504
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujimura, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 for reference
Goodwin teaches a voice registration portion configured to learn a parameter of an AI model based on the voice signal resulting from a keyword being uttered a plurality of times (Goodwin, [0022]: “In order to account for such variability, a text-dependent system may collect multiple examples of the key phrase from an enrolling user.”).
Fujimura and Goodwin are analogous arts because they each belong to the field of speech processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speaker recognition system of Fujimura to incorporate the teachings of Goodwin to receive multiple utterances of the keyword from the user during a registration phase. Collecting multiple speech samples allows the system to account for a user speaking the same word or phrase in different ways (Goodwin, [0022]). This ensures the system can accurately identify and understand a user even with fluctuations in the user’s voice.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Fujimura further discloses wherein The voice registration portion and the voice verification portion perform registration and verification respectively, each based on the voice including a keyword (Fujimura, [0056]: "when there is a keyword exceeding the threshold th (Yes at step S103), in other words, when the keyword w is detected, the extending unit 134 extends a feature with respect to the detected keyword section (step S104)."; [0064]: "When there is a keyword exceeding the threshold th (Yes at step S203), in other words, when the keyword w is detected, the recognizing unit 136 determines likelihood of a speaker using a created speaker model and outputs from an intermediate layer calculated at the time of detecting a keyword (step S204).).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Fujimura further discloses an appliance comprising: the voice authentication device according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above.); and the voice conversion portion of claim 1 (Fujimura, Fig. 3; [0043]: "The speech acquiring unit 131 receives input of speech data, and generates and outputs a feature of the received speech (step S101).").
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, as applied to claims 1-2 and 10 above, and further in view of Heigold et al. (US Pat. No. 9,978,374 B2 hereinafter Heigold).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. However, Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, fails to expressly recite wherein the AI model is a three-layer neural network having an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer.
Heigold teaches wherein the AI model is a three-layer neural network having an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer (Heigold, Col. 9, lines 9-18: "The neural network 140 may include an input layer for inputting information about the utterances in the training samples 122, and several hidden layers for processing the samples 122. The weights or other parameters of one or more hidden layers may be adjusted so that the trained neural network 140 produces output that causes the speaker verification model 144 to generate the desired classification of the training samples 122 as having either matching or non-matching speakers among the simulated verification and enrollment utterances of the samples 122."; Here, the several input layers are seen as "a hidden layer".).
Fujimura, Goodwin, and Heigold are analogous arts because they each belong to the field of speech processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speaker recognition system of Fujimura, as modified by the speaker enrollment and identification system of Goodwin, to incorporate the teachings of Heigold to use an AI model with an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer. This allows the AI model to be further modified to better identify speakers (Heigold, Col. 9, lines 9-18). This improves the overall accuracy of the system.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, as applied to claims 1-2 and 10 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (WO Pat. Pub. No. 2022/007846 A1 hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. However, Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, fails to expressly recite wherein the appliance is a smart speaker.
Hu teaches wherein the appliance is a smart speaker (Hu, page 10, paragraph 2: "voiceprint recognition technology can be applied to the field of family life, and voice control of smart phones, smart cars, smart homes (eg, smart audio and video equipment, smart lighting systems, smart door locks), etc.").
Fujimura, Goodwin, and Hu are analogous arts because they each belong to the field of speech processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speaker recognition system of Fujimura, as modified by the speaker enrollment and identification system of Goodwin, to incorporate the teachings of Hu to implement the voice recognition system in a smart speaker. Applying the system to a smart speaker allows the smart speaker to recognize a speaker (Hu, page 10, paragraph 2). This ensures the smart speaker can verify identity before taking certain actions such as disclosing personal information.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Fujimura further discloses an appliance comprising: the voice authentication device according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above.); and the voice conversion portion of claim 1 (Fujimura, Fig. 3; [0043]: "The speech acquiring unit 131 receives input of speech data, and generates and outputs a feature of the received speech (step S101)."). However, Fujimura, in view of Goodwin, fails to expressly recite wherein the appliance is configured to be separated from a communication network.
Hu teaches wherein the appliance is configured to be separated from a communication network (Hu, page 19, paragraph 1: "It should be noted that, in this embodiment, the voiceprint recognition algorithm (the algorithms corresponding to steps S130 to S170 ) can be implemented on the mobile phone 100 to realize the offline recognition of the voiceprint").
Fujimura, Goodwin, and Hu are analogous arts because they each belong to the field of speech processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speaker recognition system of Fujimura, as modified by the speaker enrollment and identification system of Goodwin, to incorporate the teachings of Hu to allow the system to be disconnected from a communication network. This allows for offline recognition of a voiceprint (Hu, page 19, paragraph 1). Offline voice recognition ensures that a system that requires identity verification can continue to function regardless of network connectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art search did not yield any reference that disclosed the specific formulas dictating the connection between the hidden layer and output layer prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the prior art search did not yield any references that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine to yield each limitation of claim 13. As such, the claim is allowable.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art search did not yield any reference that disclosed the specific formulas dictating the connection between the hidden layer and output layer prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the prior art search did not yield any references that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine to yield each limitation of claim 13. As such, the claim is allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 5, each claim includes limitations comparable to those of claims 13 and 14, and thus contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons as described above in regards to claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claims 6-9, each claim depends on either claim 4 or claim 5, and therefore incorporate all limitations therefrom. As such, claims 6-9 contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as stated above in regards to claims 4 and 5.
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 TYLER J BECKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:15am-5:45pm PT.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/TYLER BECKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2657
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights