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 .
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “acquisition unit”, “detection unit”, “authentication unit”, “conversion unit”, “detection unit”, “recognition unit”, “noise detection unit”, in claims 1-3, 6 and 8-12.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (i.e., the processor 21 as provided in fig. 2 and as described in pages 8-9, para. [0032]-[0034] of the original specification), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This is neither a rejection of nor an objection to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al US 2021/80097158 A1 (“Lee”)
Per claim 1, Lee discloses an authentication device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires a voice signal of an utterance voice of a speaker (para. [0034]; para. [0037]);
a detection unit that detects a first utterance period during which the speaker is speaking based on the acquired voice signal (fig. 5; para. [0083]; para. [0117]); and
an authentication unit that authenticates the speaker based on a comparison between a voice signal of the first utterance period detected by the detection unit and a database, wherein the detection unit detects a second utterance period different from the first utterance period when the authentication unit determines that the speaker authentication is impossible, and the authentication unit authenticates the speaker based on a comparison between the voice signal of the first utterance period and a voice signal of the second utterance period, and the database (For example, when the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication, the processor 120 may request an additional speech of the user. According to an embodiment, when requesting an additional speech of the user, the processor 120 may output a message and/or a signal requesting the user to speak a text stored in association with authentication information of the corresponding identification word. For example, when the inputted voice command is “Ben” and the text for user authentication is “I'm Ben,” the processor 120 may determine that the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication, and may request the user to speak a designated text, such as “I'm Ben.” The processor 120 may receive a voice command which is longer than or equal to the length of the text for user authentication by the additional speech of the user. …, para. [0059]; para. [0084]).
Per claim 2, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects the first utterance period and the second utterance period in time series of the acquired voice signals, respectively (para. [0059]; para. [0084]).
Per claim 3, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 1, wherein the first utterance period and the second utterance period are two continuous utterance periods detected by the detection unit (para. [0059]; para. [0084]).
Per claim 4, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 1, wherein a total length of the first utterance period and the second utterance period is equal to or longer than a first predetermined time (the processor 120 may determine whether to request an additional speech of the user by comparing a length of the inputted voice command and a length of the text for user authentication.…, para. [0059]).
Per claim 5, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 1, wherein a length of each of the first utterance period and the second utterance period is equal to or longer than a second predetermined time (The processor 120 may receive a voice command which is longer than or equal to the length of the text for user authentication by the additional speech of the user…., para. [0059]).
Per claim 6, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 1, further comprising: a recognition unit that voice-recognizes a first number of characters included in the first utterance period and a second number of characters included in the second utterance period, wherein a total number of characters included in the first utterance period and the second utterance period is equal to or larger than a first predetermined number of characters (the processor 120 may determine whether to request an additional speech of the user by comparing a length of the inputted voice command and a length of the text for user authentication. For example, when the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication … For example, when the inputted voice command is “Ben” and the text for user authentication is “I'm Ben,” the processor 120 may determine that the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication, and may request the user to speak a designated text, such as “I'm Ben.” The processor 120 may receive a voice command which is longer than or equal to the length of the text for user authentication by the additional speech of the user…., para. [0059]).
Per claim 7, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 6, wherein the number of characters included in each of the first utterance period and the second utterance period is equal to or larger than a second predetermined number of characters (the processor 120 may determine whether to request an additional speech of the user by comparing a length of the inputted voice command and a length of the text for user authentication. For example, when the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication … For example, when the inputted voice command is “Ben” and the text for user authentication is “I'm Ben,” the processor 120 may determine that the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication, and may request the user to speak a designated text, such as “I'm Ben.” The processor 120 may receive a voice command which is longer than or equal to the length of the text for user authentication by the additional speech of the user…., para. [0059], length of each of first and second utterance as greater than zero characters).
Per claim 14, Lee discloses an authentication method performed by one or more computers, the authentication method comprising:
acquiring a voice signal of an utterance voice of a speaker (para. [0034]; para. [0037]);
detecting a first utterance period during which the speaker is speaking based on the acquired voice signal (fig. 5; para. [0083]; para. [0117]);
authenticating the speaker based on a comparison between a voice signal of the detected first utterance period and a database, detecting a second utterance period different from the first utterance period when it is determined that the speaker authentication is impossible based on the voice signal of the first utterance period, and authenticating the speaker based on a comparison between the voice signal of the first utterance period and a voice signal of the second utterance period, and the database (For example, when the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication, the processor 120 may request an additional speech of the user. According to an embodiment, when requesting an additional speech of the user, the processor 120 may output a message and/or a signal requesting the user to speak a text stored in association with authentication information of the corresponding identification word. For example, when the inputted voice command is “Ben” and the text for user authentication is “I'm Ben,” the processor 120 may determine that the length of the inputted voice command is shorter than the length of the text for user authentication, and may request the user to speak a designated text, such as “I'm Ben.” The processor 120 may receive a voice command which is longer than or equal to the length of the text for user authentication by the additional speech of the user. …, para. [0059]; para. [0084]).
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.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hennig et al US 2022/0328050 A1 (“Hennig”)
Per claim 9, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 7,
Lee does not explicitly disclose a conversion unit that converts a speech speed of the first utterance period and a speech speed of the second utterance period into a predetermined speech speed, wherein the authentication unit authenticates the speaker based on a comparison between the voice signal of the first utterance period and the voice signal of the second utterance period whose speech speeds are converted into the predetermined speech speed, and the database
However, this feature is suggested by Hennig (para. [0024]; When voice data (e.g., the user's voice in one interaction; or, in another interaction, a sped up, slowed down, or otherwise modified replay of the recording of a voice of the user) is received from an unidentified user 114 (e.g., the user in one interaction; or an adversarial user in another interaction), the voice verification component 118 (e.g., employing the AI component 214, fraud detector component 136, or other component) can analyze the voice data (e.g., raw voice data), and/or can process (e.g., can de-trend or otherwise process) the voice data to generate processed or de-trended voice data. …, para. [0062], de-trending/processing the sped up, slowed down speech input as suggesting converting speech into a predetermined speech speed)’
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Hennig with the device of Lee in arriving at the missing features of Lee, because such combination would have resulted in determining or identifying various characteristics associated with the voice data (Hennig, para. [0062]-[0063]).
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Choi US 2019/0251975 A1 (“Choi”)
Per claim 10, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 1,
Lee does not explicitly disclose a noise detection unit that detects a noise period included in the voice signals of the first utterance period and the second utterance period, wherein the authentication unit deletes the noise period detected from the first utterance period and the second utterance period, and authenticates the speaker based on a comparison between the voice signals of the first utterance period and the second utterance period from which the noise period is deleted, and the database.
However, this feature is suggested by Choi (fig. 5; para. [0016]; the intelligent agent 3015a may preprocess the user input before transmitting the user input to the intelligent server 3020. According to an embodiment, in order to preprocess the user input, the intelligent agent 3015a may include an Adaptive Echo Canceller (AEC) module, a Noise Suppression (NS) module, an End-Point Detection (EPD) module, or an Automatic Gain Control (AGC) module. The AEC may remove an echo from the user input. The NS module may suppress background noise included in the user input.…, para. [0284])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi with the device of Lee in arriving at the missing features of Lee, because such combination would have resulted in isolating features corresponding to speech/voice (Choi, para. [0128]-[0129]; para. [0284]).
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jeong US 2022/0343921 A1 (“Jeong”)
Per claim 13, Lee discloses the authentication device according to claim 6,
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of characters is the number of moras, the number of syllables, or the number of phonemes
However, this feature is taught by Jeong (he processor 521 may perform speaker verification of an input voice through the speaker verification module 527. The speaker verification according to an embodiment may be speaker-dependent voice recognition. For example, the speaker verification may be performed using information on a voice feature of a registered user … For example, the information on the feature of the input voice may include various types of property information such as the frequency feature of a voice signal of the input voice, the duration or the volume of the voice, the number of phonemes …, para. [0100]-[0102]; para. [0121])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Jeong with the device of Lee in arriving at the missing features of Lee, because such combination would have resulted in proving a way to compare registered user voices with input voices (Jeong, para. [0121]-[0124]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11 and 12 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUJIMI A ADESANYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/OLUJIMI A ADESANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658