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 .
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-16 and 18-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed, with respect to the amended Claim 1 and the previously cited prior art, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-10 under 35 USC 102, and Claim 5 under 35 USC 103, has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Marryman (US Patent 4,299,577).
Applicant’s arguments filed, with respect to the amended Claim 11 and the previously cited prior art, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 11, 13 and 14 under 35 USC 102, and Claim 15 under 35 USC 103, has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kamai et al. (US Pub. 2013/0238337 A1).
Applicant’s arguments filed, with respect to the amended Claim 16 and the previously cited prior art, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 18 and 19 under 35 USC 102, and Claim 20 under 35 USC 103, has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kamai et al. (US Pub. 2013/0238337 A1).
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, 2, 4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez et al. (US Pub. 2011/0131041 A1) in view of Marryman (US Patent 4,299,577).
Regarding Claim 1, Cortez teaches a computer-implemented method (see Fig.3 and paragraph [0066]), the method comprising:
determining a speech transition within a speech signal, the speech transition including a change of sound (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (E420) and paragraphs [0114], recognizing spoken vowels);
determining a mouth state based on the speech transition (see Fig.5 (E520,521,522) and paragraph [0084], mouth opening or closed);
determining a vowel transition during a vowel sound within the speech signal (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (E420) and paragraphs [0114], recognizing spoken vowels);
and modifying a facial feature of an avatar based on the mouth state and the vowel transition (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (400,E460,E470), paragraphs [0065-0066], paragraphs [0098-0099] and paragraph [0103]).
Cortex fails to teach wherein the speech transition includes a change of sound while making the same vowel sound.
Marryman, however, teaches a speech transition from one consonant to another within the same syllable or vowel sound in which a speaker changes the sound by the lip and tongue positions (see Col.3, Line 3-16, making the sounds of letters “M” and “N” grouped together).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Cortez’s method the step for determining a speech transition within a speech signal that includes a change of sound while making a same vowel sound. The motivation would be to determine a transition from one consonant to another within the same syllable or vowel sound.
Regarding Claim 2, Cortez further teaches wherein the speech transition includes a phonemic transition (see Fig.4 (E470), paragraph [0010] and paragraph [0081], determining energy when pronouncing various phonemes).
Regarding Claim 3, Cortez further teaches wherein the vowel transition includes a first acoustic resonance within the speech signal and a second acoustic resonance within the speech signal (see Fig.5 (E540), Fig.6 (611,E610,E620) and paragraphs [0085-0086], identifying different vowels that are spoken), the first acoustic resonance having a different resonant frequency than the second acoustic resonance (see Fig.5 (E540), Fig.6 (611,E610,E620) and paragraphs [0085-0086], identifying different vowels that are spoken).
Regarding Claim 4, Cortez further teaches wherein determining the mouth state includes: extracting an envelope from the speech signal (see Fig.5 (E510,511) and paragraph [0080], energy of voice signal); and comparing a value of the envelope to a talking threshold value (see Fig.5 (E510,E520) and paragraph [0084]), wherein the mouth state is open when the value of the envelope satisfies the talking threshold value (see Fig.5 (521,522) and paragraph [0084]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cortez further teaches identifying a consonant feature within the speech signal (see Fig.4 (E420), paragraph [0028] and paragraph [0081]); and identifying a vowel feature within the speech signal (see Fig.4 (E420), paragraph [0028] and paragraph [0081]), wherein modifying the facial feature includes modifying the facial feature based on the mouth state, the vowel transition, the consonant feature, and the vowel feature (see Fig.4 (E460,E470), Fig.5 (E520), paragraph [0084] and paragraphs [0118-0119]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cortez further teaches transcribing a first phoneme within the speech signal (see Fig.4 (E420), paragraph [0028] and paragraph [0081], identifying phonemes of spoken vowels);
and transcribing a second phoneme within the speech signal (see Fig.4 (E420), paragraph [0028] and paragraph [0081], identifying phonemes of spoken vowels), wherein modifying the facial feature includes modifying the facial feature based on the mouth state, the vowel transition, the first phoneme, and the second phoneme (see Fig.4 (E460,E470), Fig.5 (E520), paragraph [0084] and paragraphs [0118-0119]).
Regarding Claim 8, Cortez further teaches identifying a predetermined sound within the speech signal (see Fig.4 (E420), paragraph [0078] and paragraph [0114], recognizing spoken vowels);
and mapping the predetermined sound to a predetermined facial movement (see Fig.4 (E450,E460) and paragraph [0099]),
wherein modifying the facial feature includes modifying the facial feature based on the mouth state, the vowel transition, and the predetermined facial movement (see Fig.4 (E460,E470) and paragraphs [0118-0119]).
Regarding Claim 9, Cortez further teaches wherein modifying the facial feature includes modifying the facial feature based on the mouth state, the vowel transition, and an acceleration measurement (see Fig.4 (E420,E430,E450,E460,E470) Fig.5 (E520), paragraph [0066] and paragraph [0099]).
Regarding Claim 10, Cortez further teaches returning the avatar to a neutral state (see Fig.7, paragraph [0099] and paragraph [0104]).
Claims 11, 13-14, 16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez et al. (US Pub. 2011/0131041 A1) in view of Kamai et al. (US Pub. 2013/0238337 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Cortez teaches a computer-implemented method (see Fig.3 and paragraph [0066]), the method comprising:
determining a speech transition within a speech signal, the speech transition including a change of sound (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (E420) and paragraphs [0114], recognizing spoken vowels);
determining a mouth state based on the speech transition (see Fig.5 (E520,521,522) and paragraph [0084], mouth opening or closed);
determining a vowel transition during a vowel sound of a syllable within the speech signal (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (E420) and paragraphs [0114], recognizing spoken vowels and syllables);
and modifying a facial feature of an avatar based on the mouth state and the vowel transition (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (400,E460,E470), paragraphs [0065-0066], paragraphs [0098-0099] and paragraph [0103]).
Cortez fails to teach wherein the vowel transition including a first formant during the vowel sound and a second formant during the vowel sound.
Kamai, however, teaches evaluating the first formant frequency and the second formant frequency for a vowel sound to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within the vowel sound (see paragraph [0234]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Cortez’s method the step for determining a vowel transition including a first formant during the vowel sound and a second formant during the vowel sound. The motivation would be to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within a vowel sound of the speech signal.
Regarding Claims 13 and 18, Cortez further teaches wherein the vowel transition includes a first acoustic resonance within the speech signal and a second acoustic resonance within the speech signal (see Fig.5 (E540), Fig.6 (611,E610,E620) and paragraphs [0085-0086], identifying different vowels that are spoken), the first acoustic resonance having a different resonant frequency than the second acoustic resonance (see Fig.5 (E540), Fig.6 (611,E610,E620) and paragraphs [0085-0086], identifying different vowels that are spoken).
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, Cortez further teaches wherein determining the mouth state includes: extracting an envelope from the speech signal (see Fig.5 (E510,511) and paragraph [0080], energy of voice signal); and comparing a value of the envelope to a talking threshold value (see Fig.5 (E510,E520) and paragraph [0084]), wherein the mouth state is open when the value of the envelope satisfies the talking threshold value (see Fig.5 (521,522) and paragraph [0084]).
Regarding Claim 16, Cortez teaches a computer-implemented method (see Fig.3 and paragraph [0066]), the method comprising:
determining a speech transition within a speech signal, the speech transition including a change of sound (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (E420) and paragraphs [0114], recognizing spoken vowels);
determining a mouth state based on the speech transition (see Fig.5 (E520,521,522) and paragraph [0084], mouth opening or closed);
determining a vowel transition during a vowel sound within the speech signal (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (E420) and paragraphs [0114], recognizing spoken vowels);
and modifying a facial feature of an avatar based on the mouth state and the vowel transition (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (400,E460,E470), paragraphs [0065-0066], paragraphs [0098-0099] and paragraph [0103]).
Cortex fails to teach wherein the vowel transition including a first formant during the vowel sound and a second formant during the vowel sound, the first formant and the second formant indicating intra-vowel separation within the vowel sound.
Kamai, however, teaches evaluating the first formant frequency and the second formant frequency for a vowel sound to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within the vowel sound (see paragraph [0234]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Cortez’s method the step for determining a vowel transition including a first formant during the vowel sound and a second formant during the vowel sound, the first formant and the second formant indicating intra-vowel separation within the vowel sound. The motivation would be to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within a vowel sound of the speech signal.
Regarding Claim 21, Cortez teaches modifying a facial feature of an avatar based on the mouth state and the vowel transition (see Fig.3, Fig.4 (400,E460,E470), paragraphs [0065-0066], paragraphs [0098-0099] and paragraph [0103]); and forming different shapes and positioning of the mouth of the avatar (see Fig.3, paragraph [0021], paragraph [0085] and paragraph [0066]), but fails to teach modifying the facial feature of the avatar based on a frequency transition between the first formant and the second formant.
Kamai, however, teaches evaluating the first formant frequency and the second formant frequency for a vowel sound to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within the vowel sound (see paragraph [0234]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Cortez’s method the step for modifying the facial feature of the avatar based on a frequency transition between the first formant and the second formant. The motivation would be to form different mouth shapes for the avatar based on the determined speech sounds of the speech signal.
Regarding Claim 22, Kamai further teaches wherein the first formant includes a first prominent band of frequency that determines a first phonetic quality of the vowel sound and the second formant includes a second prominent band of frequency that determines a second phonetic quality of the vowel sound (see paragraph [0234]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez et al. (US Pub. 2011/0131041 A1) in view of Marryman (US Patent 4,299,577), and in further view of Akashi et al. (Patent 12,307,455 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Cortez and Marryman teach the method of Claim 1, but fail to teach determining a first formant during the vowel sound within the speech signal; determining a second formant during the vowel sound within the speech signal; and comparing the first formant and the second formant to a dataset of sequential formants to identify a pair of sequential formants that corresponds to the first formant and the second formant, wherein the vowel transition corresponds to the pair of sequential formants.
Akashi, however, teaches determining a first formant and a second formant during the vowel sound within a speech signal and comparing the formants to identify open syllables in the speech signal (see Col.10, Line 39-63).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 1 the steps for determining a first formant and a second formant during the vowel sound within a speech signal and comparing the formants to a dataset of sequential formants to identify a pair of sequential formants that corresponds to the first formant and the second formant. The motivation would be to identify open syllables in the speech signal.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez et al. (US Pub. 2011/0131041 A1) in view of Kamai et al. (US Pub. 2013/0238337 A1), and in further view of Akashi et al. (Patent 12,307,455 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, Cortez and Kamai teach the method of Claim 11, but fail to teach determining a first formant during the vowel sound within the speech signal; determining a second formant during the vowel sound within the speech signal; and comparing the first formant and the second formant to a dataset of sequential formants to identify a pair of sequential formants that corresponds to the first formant and the second formant, wherein the vowel transition corresponds to the pair of sequential formants.
Akashi, however, teaches determining a first formant and a second formant during the vowel sound within a speech signal and comparing the formants to identify open syllables in the speech signal (see Col.10, Line 39-63).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 11 the steps for determining a first formant and a second formant during the vowel sound within a speech signal and comparing the formants to a dataset of sequential formants to identify a pair of sequential formants that corresponds to the first formant and the second formant. The motivation would be to identify open syllables in the speech signal.
Regarding Claim 20, Cortez and Kamai teach the method of Claim 16, but fail to teach determining a first formant during the vowel sound within the speech signal; determining a second formant during the vowel sound within the speech signal; and comparing the first formant and the second formant to a dataset of sequential formants to identify a pair of sequential formants that corresponds to the first formant and the second formant, wherein the vowel transition corresponds to the pair of sequential formants.
Akashi, however, teaches determining a first formant and a second formant during the vowel sound within a speech signal and comparing the formants to identify open syllables in the speech signal (see Col.10, Line 39-63).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 16 the steps for determining a first formant and a second formant during the vowel sound within a speech signal and comparing the formants to a dataset of sequential formants to identify a pair of sequential formants that corresponds to the first formant and the second formant. The motivation would be to identify open syllables in the speech signal.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortez et al. (US Pub. 2011/0131041 A1) in view of Marryman (US Patent 4,299,577), and in further view of Kamai et al. (US Pub. 2013/0238337 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Cortez and Kamai teach the method of Claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the vowel transition includes a first acoustic resonance and a second acoustic resonance, the first acoustic resonance having a different resonant frequency than the second acoustic resonance.
Kamai, however, teaches evaluating the first formant frequency and the second formant frequency for a vowel sound to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within the vowel sound (see paragraph [0234]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to the method of Claim 11 the step for determining a vowel transition includes a first acoustic resonance and a second acoustic resonance, the first acoustic resonance having a different resonant frequency than the second acoustic resonance. The motivation would be to determine the different speech sounds or consonants within a vowel sound of the speech signal.
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 VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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, Hai Phan, can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights