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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following titles are suggested:
“Caller-dependent Voice Signal Obfuscation using a Voice-Key Database”
“Real-time Synthetic Voice Generation for Untrusted Calls using a Voice-Key Database”
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: The language of the claim is open to more than one interpretation. The Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typographical error in the claim. In "The system of claim 1, wherein the caller is an automated caller. and the input is text to . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Efrati, Tzahi et al. (US-20160210959-A1) hereinafter Efrati.
Regarding claim 1, Efrati teaches:
A system comprising: a processor configured to: identify a contact associated with a caller;
“According to one embodiment, once the call has begun and participants (for example, participants 210-216) of the conversation have started speaking, the dialect modification apparatus 200 receives a source audio signal associated with each participant. The detection module 202 then detects the dialect of each participant based on one or more of their voices in the call, their caller ID, their user ID if using a VoIP network, and associated metadata…” (Efrati [0034]).
retrieve a voice seed associated with the contact;
“FIG. 3 is a block diagram detailing the operation of the detection module 202 in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention. As described above, the detection module 202 parses the voice content of all participants and retrieves an associate's speech profile associated with each participant. According to FIG. 3, the detection module 202 retrieves a speech profile 300 from the datastore 208 based on the detected user dialect. In some embodiments, the selection of a speech profile is greatly enhanced by participant metadata 301 to increase the accuracy of the selected speech profile.” (Efrati [0044]).
and generate a synthetic voice based in part on the voice seed and an input from the caller.
“According to another embodiment, the conversion module 204 passes the voice call content 400 directly to the modulation module 206 without performing speech-to-text conversion. The modulation module 206 then parses the voice call content 400 into various phonemes. The difference between the phonemes of the participant and the phonemes of the target dialect are determined, and based on the speech profile 300, the modulation module 206 modulates portions of the voice call content 400 to generate a modulated voice 404. The modulated voice 404 is modulated according to the predetermined or chosen one or more target dialects. The modulated voice 404 is then relayed to the appropriate call participants, based on which dialect the recipients are programmed to hear.” (Efrati [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Efrati teaches:
A method including operations executed by one or more processors, the operations comprising: receiving an input from a caller;
“According to one embodiment, once the call has begun and participants (for example, participants 210-216) of the conversation have started speaking, the dialect modification apparatus 200 receives a source audio signal associated with each participant...” (Efrati [0034]).
identifying a contact associated with caller;
“…The detection module 202 then detects the dialect of each participant based on one or more of their voices in the call, their caller ID, their user ID if using a VoIP network, and associated metadata. In other words, the detection module 202 detects a source dialect for each participant. In some instances, the metadata may further contain location information for the origination of the call, social media profile information, contact information, destination of the call or the like…” (Efrati [0034]).
retrieving a voice seed associated with the contact;
“FIG. 3 is a block diagram detailing the operation of the detection module 202 in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention. As described above, the detection module 202 parses the voice content of all participants and retrieves an associate's speech profile associated with each participant. According to FIG. 3, the detection module 202 retrieves a speech profile 300 from the datastore 208 based on the detected user dialect. In some embodiments, the selection of a speech profile is greatly enhanced by participant metadata 301 to increase the accuracy of the selected speech profile.” (Efrati [0044]).
and generating a synthetic voice based in part on applying the associated voice seed and an input from the caller.
“According to another embodiment, the conversion module 204 passes the voice call content 400 directly to the modulation module 206 without performing speech-to-text conversion. The modulation module 206 then parses the voice call content 400 into various phonemes. The difference between the phonemes of the participant and the phonemes of the target dialect are determined, and based on the speech profile 300, the modulation module 206 modulates portions of the voice call content 400 to generate a modulated voice 404. The modulated voice 404 is modulated according to the predetermined or chosen one or more target dialects. The modulated voice 404 is then relayed to the appropriate call participants, based on which dialect the recipients are programmed to hear.” (Efrati [0052]).
Regarding claim 20, Efrati teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying program code that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform operations comprising: receiving an input from a caller;
“… In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
identifying a contact associated with the caller;
“… The detection module 202 then detects the dialect of each participant based on one or more of their voices in the call, their caller ID, their user ID if using a VoIP network, and associated metadata. In other words, the detection module 202 detects a source dialect for each participant. In some instances, the metadata may further contain location information for the origination of the call, social media profile information, contact information, destination of the call or the like...” (Efrati [0034]).
retrieving a voice seed associated with the contact;
“FIG. 3 is a block diagram detailing the operation of the detection module 202 in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention. As described above, the detection module 202 parses the voice content of all participants and retrieves an associate's speech profile associated with each participant. According to FIG. 3, the detection module 202 retrieves a speech profile 300 from the datastore 208 based on the detected user dialect. In some embodiments, the selection of a speech profile is greatly enhanced by participant metadata 301 to increase the accuracy of the selected speech profile.” (Efrati [0044]).
and generating a synthetic voice based in part on applying the associated voice seed and an input from the caller.
“According to another embodiment, the conversion module 204 passes the voice call content 400 directly to the modulation module 206 without performing speech-to-text conversion. The modulation module 206 then parses the voice call content 400 into various phonemes. The difference between the phonemes of the participant and the phonemes of the target dialect are determined, and based on the speech profile 300, the modulation module 206 modulates portions of the voice call content 400 to generate a modulated voice 404. The modulated voice 404 is modulated according to the predetermined or chosen one or more target dialects. The modulated voice 404 is then relayed to the appropriate call participants, based on which dialect the recipients are programmed to hear.” (Efrati [0052]).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 to 7, 10, and 12 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Guedalia, Jacob et al. (US-8756328-B2) hereinafter Guedalia.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
receiving a request to generate an associated voice seed;
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
generating a voice seed associated with the selected contact;
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like [the] voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
and storing the voice seed in a voice key database.
“The datastore 208 stores dialects samples, speech profiles and other data related to voice modification during a call. In some embodiments, a speech profile is returned to the detection module 202 based on the dialect matched from the datastore 208.” (Efrati [0037]).
Efrati does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to identify the contact associated with the caller by: providing a user a contact list;
receiving a selected contact;
providing the user a voice seed generator interface;
On the other hand, Guedalia teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to identify the contact associated with the caller by: providing a user a contact list;
“Other embodiments are directed to an apparatus wherein the display comprises a screen that provides a visual display of a plurality of contacts from said contacts list and permits perception of a state of presence of said contact.” (Guedalia, column 7 lines 60 to 63).
receiving a selected contact;
“Still other embodiments are directed to a signaling system for establishing communication between a first mobile telephony device coupled to a mobile telephony network and a second communication device coupled to a data network, including first communication means for signaling communication between said first mobile telephony device and a server; a data storage and retrieval means, coupled to said server, for storing and maintaining a server contacts list of a plurality of contacts associated with said first mobile telephony device; a mobile contacts list correlated with said server contacts list and indicative of a state of information in said server contacts list, said mobile contacts list being accessible by said first mobile telephony device to provide a selected one or more contacts from said mobile contacts list to said server; and a second communication means for signaling communication between said second communication device and said server according to an address correlation at said server correlating said selected one or more contacts received over said mobile telephony network with a corresponding data network address of said second communication device. ” (Guedalia, column 7 lines 24 to 43).
providing the user a voice seed generator interface;
“Other embodiments are directed to an apparatus wherein the selector comprises a hardware user interface element that is constructed to receive an input from a user to select said contact from said stored contacts list.” (Guedalia, column 7 lines 64 to 67).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Guedalia to include a contact list with the capabilities of providing a contact from the list and a graphical user interface for the voice modifier. The motivation and some of the benefits to include the contact list is discussed by Guedalia in: ”One aspect of the present invention allows users to integrate multiple contact lists stored on different devices. Generally, contact lists associate contact information (contact name, alias, etc.) with the network address of the contact. For instance, a contact list stored on the cellular phone may associate a contact Joe Smith with the phone number 617-123-1234. Similarly a contact list stored in the VoIP device may associate a contact "Smith" with the Internet Protocol address "66.249.64.15."” (Guedalia, column 17 lines 52 to 60).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the user comprises the caller, and the input is audio provided by the caller.
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to modify the voice seed associated with the contact based on a modification request received from the user.
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)...” (Efrati [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein modifying the voice seed associated with the contact further comprises: receiving one or more seed generation parameters from the user;
“…In some embodiments, each participant may require that incoming voice calls be modulated to the participant's dialect. For example, the first participant 210 may configure it so that their personal dialect is the target dialect for all incoming calls to the first participant 210. Similarly, on the same call, third participant 214 may configure it so that all incoming voice is modulated to the dialect of participant 214.” (Efrati [0040]).
“The speech profile 300 is comprised of regional information 302, dialect information 304, phonetic transformation information 306 and acoustic information 308…” (Efrati [0046]).
“At step 606, one or more target dialects are chosen for at least one of the one or more participants. Namely, it is not necessary that only one target dialect be selected for all participants. The dialect modification module 506 can be configured to enable each participant to hear other participants' speech in their dialect…” (Efrati [0063]).
and generating the voice seed from input of the seed generation parameters.
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the one or more seed generation parameters include audio accessibility parameters.
“The method begins at step 602 and proceeds to step 604. At step 604, the detection module 508 detects the dialect of one or more voice call participants. The detected dialects may be all the same, or each one may differ. The goal is to align the dialects so that all participants may understand each other. The dialects are detected based on a received source audio signal associated with at least one participant. The source audio signal comprises a voice of the at least one participant.” (Efrati [0062]).
“At step 606, one or more target dialects are chosen for at least one of the one or more participants. Namely, it is not necessary that only one target dialect be selected for all participants. The dialect modification module 506 can be configured to enable each participant to hear other participants' speech in their dialect…” (Efrati [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Efrati does not teach:
The system of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to restrict access to the voice seed generator interface by authenticating the user.
On the other hand, Guedalia teaches:
“…This may involve an authentication sequence whereby device D1 and/or user U1 provide a user name or a password to server SVR. Also, the identity of device D1 may be transmitted through a serial number or other coded hardware and/or software scheme that identifies the processor, a key, or software or other token on device D1. Server SVR may look up the authentication log on information from device D1/user U1 directly, e.g. on a lookup table, or using an authentication server or client software on or coupled to or accessible to server SVR.” (Guedalia, column 11 lines 32 to 41).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Guedalia to include instructions for the processor to require authentication to access the interface. The motivation and some of the benefits to include an authentication process is discussed by Guedalia in: “Device D1 and/or user U1 then "logs on" to server SVR over the portions of the communication path or network between device D1 and server SVR. This process is generally known to those skilled in the art and involves any of a number of authentication steps so that server SVR can determine the identity of device D1 and/or its user U1 to an acceptable degree of certainty.” (Guedalia, column 11 lines 26 to 32).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The system of claim 4, wherein generating the synthetic voice based in part on the voice seed and an input from the caller comprises retaining one or more voiceprint characteristics of the input from the caller.
“In some embodiments, this phoneme conversion is performed in real-time, or with a slight delay based on processing time of the underlying hardware of the dialect modification apparatus 200, preserving the identity of each participant while making each participant easier to understand to others. In some embodiments, participants who would like to hear other participants without voice modulation may disable any voice modulation generated by the dialect modification apparatus 200.” (Efrati [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
receiving a request to generate an associated voice seed;
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
generating a voice seed associated with the selected contact;
“A method for voice modification during a telephone call comprising receiving a source audio signal associated with at least one participant, wherein the source audio signal comprises a voice of the at least one participant, detecting a source dialect of the at least one participant, selecting a target dialect based on at least a characteristic of a target participant and creating a modulated audio signal based on the source audio signal, the source dialect, and the target dialect and transmitting the modulated audio signal to the target participant.” (Efrati [Abstract]).
and storing the voice seed in a voice key database.
“Alternatively, a sample of the participant's voice is taken from the source audio signal by the detection module 202 and compared to existing dialects stored in a datastore 208. The datastore 208 may be a relational database, or other type of data storing service. In some instances, the datastore 208 may be located locally or remotely from the dialect modification apparatus 200. The datastore 208 stores dialects samples, speech profiles and other data related to voice modification during a call. In some embodiments, a speech profile is returned to the detection module 202 based on the dialect matched from the datastore 208.” (Efrati [0037]).
Efrati does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to identify the contact associated with the caller by: providing a user a contact list;
receiving a selected contact;
providing the user a voice seed generator interface;
On the other hand, Guedalia teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to identify the contact associated with the caller by: providing a user a contact list;
“Other embodiments are directed to an apparatus wherein the display comprises a screen that provides a visual display of a plurality of contacts from said contacts list and permits perception of a state of presence of said contact.” (Guedalia, column 7 lines 60 to 64).
receiving a selected contact;
“Still other embodiments are directed to a signaling system for establishing communication between a first mobile telephony device coupled to a mobile telephony network and a second communication device coupled to a data network, including first communication means for signaling communication between said first mobile telephony device and a server; a data storage and retrieval means, coupled to said server, for storing and maintaining a server contacts list of a plurality of contacts associated with said first mobile telephony device; a mobile contacts list correlated with said server contacts list and indicative of a state of information in said server contacts list, said mobile contacts list being accessible by said first mobile telephony device to provide a selected one or more contacts from said mobile contacts list to said server; and a second communication means for signaling communication between said second communication device and said server according to an address correlation at said server correlating said selected one or more contacts received over said mobile telephony network with a corresponding data network address of said second communication device.” (Guedalia, column 7 lines 24 to 43).
providing the user a voice seed generator interface;
“Other embodiments are directed to an apparatus wherein the selector comprises a hardware user interface element that is constructed to receive an input from a user to select said contact from said stored contacts list.” (Guedalia, column 7 lines 64 to 67).
Similar to claim 2, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Guedalia to include a contact list with the capabilities of providing a contact from the list and a graphical user interface for the voice modifier. The motivation and some of the benefits to include the contact list is discussed by Guedalia in: “One aspect of the present invention allows users to integrate multiple contact lists stored on different devices. Generally, contact lists associate contact information (contact name, alias, etc.) with the network address of the contact. For instance, a contact list stored on the cellular phone may associate a contact Joe Smith with the phone number 617-123-1234. Similarly a contact list stored in the VoIP device may associate a contact "Smith" with the Internet Protocol address "66.249.64.15."” (Guedalia, column 17 lines 52 to 60).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the user comprises the caller, and the input is audio provided by the caller.
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to modify the voice seed associated with the contact based on a modification request received from the user.
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein modifying the voice seed associated with the contact further comprises: receiving a plurality of seed generation parameters from the user;
“…In some embodiments, each participant may require that incoming voice calls be modulated to the participant's dialect. For example, the first participant 210 may configure it so that their personal dialect is the target dialect for all incoming calls to the first participant 210. Similarly, on the same call, third participant 214 may configure it so that all incoming voice is modulated to the dialect of participant 214.” (Efrati [0040]).
“The speech profile 300 is comprised of regional information 302, dialect information 304, phonetic transformation information 306 and acoustic information 308…” (Efrati [0046]).
“At step 606, one or more target dialects are chosen for at least one of the one or more participants. Namely, it is not necessary that only one target dialect be selected for all participants. The dialect modification module 506 can be configured to enable each participant to hear other participants' speech in their dialect…” (Efrati [0063]).
and generating the voice seed from input of the seed generation parameters.
“…In some embodiments, the participant metadata 301 retrieved from a user profile stored in a database maintained by the service provider may include a user selection of a first dialect they would like to voice to be modulated to (i.e., how a user would like to sound to other participants), and/or a user selection of a second dialect that they would like the other participant(s) voice to be modulated to (how a user would like other participants to sound to them)…” (Efrati [0045]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, furthermore Efrati teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of seed generation parameters includes audio accessibility parameters.
“The method begins at step 602 and proceeds to step 604. At step 604, the detection module 508 detects the dialect of one or more voice call participants. The detected dialects may be all the same, or each one may differ. The goal is to align the dialects so that all participants may understand each other. The dialects are detected based on a received source audio signal associated with at least one participant. The source audio signal comprises a voice of the at least one participant.” (Efrati [0062]).
“At step 606, one or more target dialects are chosen for at least one of the one or more participants. Namely, it is not necessary that only one target dialect be selected for all participants. The dialect modification module 506 can be configured to enable each participant to hear other participants' speech in their dialect…” (Efrati [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Efrati does not teach:
The method of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to restrict access to the voice seed generator interface by authenticating the user.
On the other hand, Guedalia teaches:
“…This may involve an authentication sequence whereby device D1 and/or user U1 provide a user name or a password to server SVR. Also, the identity of device D1 may be transmitted through a serial number or other coded hardware and/or software scheme that identifies the processor, a key, or software or other token on device D1. Server SVR may look up the authentication log on information from device D1/user U1 directly, e.g. on a lookup table, or using an authentication server or client software on or coupled to or accessible to server SVR.” (Guedalia, column 11 lines 32 to 41).
Similar to claim 7, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Guedalia to include instructions for the processor to require authentication to access the interface. The motivation and some of the benefits to include an authentication process is discussed by Guedalia in: “Device D1 and/or user U1 then "logs on" to server SVR over the portions of the communication path or network between device D1 and server SVR. This process is generally known to those skilled in the art and involves any of a number of authentication steps so that server SVR can determine the identity of device D1 and/or its user U1 to an acceptable degree of certainty.” (Guedalia, column 11 lines 26 to 32).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Guedalia in further view of Hung, Michael et al. (US 8254890 B2) hereinafter Hung.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, the combination of Efrati and Guedalia does not explicitly teach:
The system of claim 4, wherein the user is associated with a user group and the processor is further configured to restrict access to the voice seed to members of the user group.
On the other hand, Hung teaches:
“FIG. 1(a) illustrates an example group 10 of four members, A, B, C, D having amongst them, a set of shared data 11. The members A, B, C, and D may be any data communication device capable of sending, receiving, examining, storing and otherwise processing or handling data and in the following illustrative examples comprise mobile communication devices 100 (see also FIG. 3). The group 10 may be of any size but for the following examples is a small static set of members or users having the same relation to everyone else, e.g. family, sports team, co-workers, small business, club or organization, etc. As noted above, the shared data 11 exists without requiring a master copy controlled by a central entity but rather a copy of the shared data 11 is maintained at each member by exchanging multicast messages comprising updates via a message exchange service capable of such exchanges.” (Hung, column 4 lines 28 to 42).
“Although not shown, a private sub-group may also be formed within and amongst a sub-set of the members of the group 10 for sharing a set of private shared data. This allows certain members to share some specific data and information while excluding other members from accessing such data. For example, if the group 10 is a family, the parents may form a sub-group for sharing gift ideas for their children or other information such as disciplinary tactics or subjects of a sensitive nature. This avoids the need for forming an entirely separate group 10 simply to share some select information. It can be appreciated that the shared data 11 and any private shared data may be separate databases or separate portions of a common database. It can also be appreciated that FIG. 1(a) shows one group 10 but members may also belong to multiple groups each having a different set of shared data 11 exclusive to that group 10 (not shown). (Hung, column 4 lines 43 to 58).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Efrati and Guedalia to further incorporate the teachings of Hung to include instructions for the processor to manage the required authentication to access the interface and further add considerations to the user group that the user is part of. The motivation and some of the benefits to include this modification to the authentication process is discussed by Hung in: “Sharing data between a plurality of entities is typically accomplished by providing a set of shared data in a database on a centrally accessible server. Any changes, updates, edits, etc. can be managed by a document or version management system on the central server.” (Hung, column 1 lines 19 to 23).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Hung.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Efrati does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein the user is associated with a user group and the processor is further configured to restrict access to the voice seed to members of the user group.
On the other hand, Hung teaches:
“FIG. 1(a) illustrates an example group 10 of four members, A, B, C, D having amongst them, a set of shared data 11. The members A, B, C, and D may be any data communication device capable of sending, receiving, examining, storing and otherwise processing or handling data and in the following illustrative examples comprise mobile communication devices 100 (see also FIG. 3). The group 10 may be of any size but for the following examples is a small static set of members or users having the same relation to everyone else, e.g. family, sports team, co-workers, small business, club or organization, etc. As noted above, the shared data 11 exists without requiring a master copy controlled by a central entity but rather a copy of the shared data 11 is maintained at each member by exchanging multicast messages comprising updates via a message exchange service capable of such exchanges.” (Hung, column 4 lines 28 to 42).
“Although not shown, a private sub-group may also be formed within and amongst a sub-set of the members of the group 10 for sharing a set of private shared data. This allows certain members to share some specific data and information while excluding other members from accessing such data. For example, if the group 10 is a family, the parents may form a sub-group for sharing gift ideas for their children or other information such as disciplinary tactics or subjects of a sensitive nature. This avoids the need for forming an entirely separate group 10 simply to share some select information. It can be appreciated that the shared data 11 and any private shared data may be separate databases or separate portions of a common database. It can also be appreciated that FIG. 1(a) shows one group 10 but members may also belong to multiple groups each having a different set of shared data 11 exclusive to that group 10 (not shown). (Hung, column 4 lines 43 to 58).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Hung to include instructions for the processor to manage the required authentication to access the interface and further add considerations to the user group that the user is part of. The motivation and some of the benefits to include this modification to the authentication process of Efrati is discussed by Hung in: “Sharing data between a plurality of entities is typically accomplished by providing a set of shared data in a database on a centrally accessible server. Any changes, updates, edits, etc. can be managed by a document or version management system on the central server.” (Hung, column 1 lines 19 to 23).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati in view of Shambaugh, Craig et al. (US 20030215066 A1) hereinafter Shambaugh.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Efrati does not teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the caller is an automated caller[,] and the input is text to speech machine generated input provided by a user or user group.
On the other hand, Shambaugh teaches:
“One mode of practicing the invention is a method of automatic call handling allowing agent optimization in an automatic call distribution system that comprises synthesizing speech by using a script as input and generating speech as output, connecting a call from or to a call contact, and speaking to the call contact using speech generated using the prepared script as input.” (Shambaugh [0009]).
It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Shambaugh to include instructions where the caller is an automated caller that follows the input that the user or group of users provide. The motivation and some of the benefits to include this modification to the previous invention is discussed by Shambaugh in the following sections: “Known systems for handling calls in an automated call center require an extensive staff of agents, because an individual agent must participate in each call. Such individual call handling can be less than optimally efficient if a number of different call contacts tend to pose the same questions and should receive the same responses from agents. In addition to inefficiency, the quality of individual call handling can be affected by individual agent fatigue or by inadvertent errors or omissions by individual agents.” (Shambaugh [0006]).
“Current technology only allows for one agent per call. This requires an agent to handle each call even if the same questions or responses are given to or from one call contact as another call contact. If the agent is consistently responding to many callers in the same way it would be desirable to automate the process and only require an agent to be involved when something unexpected or unique happens during the call.” (Shambaugh [0007]).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, Efrati does not teach:
The method of claim 11, wherein the caller is an automated caller, and the input is text to speech machine generated input provided by a user or user group.
On the other hand, Shambaugh teaches:
“One mode of practicing the invention is a method of automatic call handling allowing agent optimization in an automatic call distribution system that comprises synthesizing speech by using a script as input and generating speech as output, connecting a call from or to a call contact, and speaking to the call contact using speech generated using the prepared script as input.” (Shambaugh [0009]).
Similar to claim 9, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Efrati to incorporate the teachings of Shambaugh to include instructions were the caller is an automated caller that follows the input that the user or group of users provide. The motivation and some of the benefits to include this modification to the previous invention is discussed by Shambaugh in the following sections: “Known systems for handling calls in an automated call center require an extensive staff of agents, because an individual agent must participate in each call. Such individual call handling can be less than optimally efficient if a number of different call contacts tend to pose the same questions and should receive the same responses from agents. In addition to inefficiency, the quality of individual call handling can be affected by individual agent fatigue or by inadvertent errors or omissions by individual agents.” (Shambaugh [0006]).
“Current technology only allows for one agent per call. This requires an agent to handle each call even if the same questions or responses are given to or from one call contact as another call contact. If the agent is consistently responding to many callers in the same way it would be desirable to automate the process and only require an agent to be involved when something unexpected or unique happens during the call.” (Shambaugh [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HECTOR J. CRESPO FEBLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4512. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 - 5:00.
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.
/H.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2657 2/19/2026
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657