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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on May 1, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebenezer (US 2018/0102136) in view of Hicks et al. (US 10,510,362).
As per claim 1, Ebenezer discloses, a method comprising:
capturing, using a microphone of a voice assistant (Fig. 2, element 9), an audio signal to generate a time-domain voice data sample (Paragraphs 0026-0028 and 0031);
identifying a time portion of the time-domain voice data sample that does not include changes in amplitude exceeding an amplitude change threshold (Paragraphs 0026-0028 and 0031);
transforming the time portion of the time-domain voice data sample into a frequency domain sample (Paragraph 0031, Discrete Fourier transform (DFT));
analyzing the frequency domain sample to identify high-frequency components above a threshold frequency value, wherein the high-frequency components correspond to artifacts in the audio signal (Paragraphs 0031-0032, the expected pitch frequency range may be set to any suitable range (e.g., 100-500 Hz));
determining, based on the analyzing the frequency domain sample, that the captured audio signal corresponds to audio played through a speaker (Paragraphs 0006 and 0021, “audio information (shown as “playback content” in FIG. 2) reproduced to output audio transducer 8”);
Ebenezer does not explicitly disclose, but Hicks discloses, in response to the determining that the captured audio signal is the audio played through the speaker, refraining from activating the voice assistant (col. 3, line 46-col. 4, line 3, “determining the direction based on such soft-VAD outputs can help deemphasize acoustic signals originating from non-human dominant sound sources”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ebenezer by including refraining from activation the voice assistant, if the audio signal is played through non-human sound source that is speaker as taught by Hicks for the advantage of in turn may improve the performance of an associated voice-activated device in such noisy environments (col. 3, line 46-col. 4, line 3).
As per claim 2, Ebenezer discloses, wherein the artifacts in the audio signal indicate that the captured audio signal was played through the speaker (Paragraphs 0006 and 0021).
As per claim 5, Ebenezer discloses, wherein the transforming a portion of the time-domain voice data sample into the frequency domain sample, comprises: applying a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to the time-domain voice data sample (Paragraph 0031).
As per claim 6, Ebenezer discloses, wherein the capturing the audio signal comprises: sampling the audio signal at a sampling frequency that is higher than the expected finite sampling frequency of the audio played through the speaker to generate a voice data sample (Paragraph 0032).
As per claim 7, Ebenezer does not disclose, but Hicks discloses, wherein the capturing the audio signal by the microphone of the voice assistant is caused by detecting a keyword (col. 3, line 46-col. 4, line 3).
As per claims 8-9, 12-15, and 18-20, they are analyzed and thus rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-2 and 5-7, because corresponding claims have similar limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 16-17 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.
Ossowski et al. (US 2021/0082429) discloses, method and system of audio false keyphrase rejection using speaker recognition.
Mansour (US 11,380,312) discloses, residual echo suppression for keyword detection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abul K. Azad whose telephone number is (571) 272-7599. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta, can be reached at (571) 272-7453.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA-22314 (Customer Service Window).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
December 5, 2025
/ABUL K AZAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656