DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that updating, by the at least one language model, the at least one response, generated by the at least one language model, to include the at least one phoneme-based pronunciation for the one or more words, to obtain at least one phoneme-tagged response (Amendment, pages 7 – 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al. (US PAP 2022/0351715) in view of Austraat (US PAP 2024/0194178).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Freed et al. teach a method/apparatus, comprising:
obtaining at least one response, generated by at least one language model, to be delivered by at least one artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital human in a spoken format, wherein the at least one response comprises a plurality of words (“the method uses an automated question answering system decision tree, or other automated response generator, to determine a textual response to the text data associated with the user's input for the conversation.”; fig.2; paragraph 44);
obtaining at least one phoneme-based pronunciation for one or more of the plurality of words, wherein the at least one phoneme-based pronunciation is based at least in part on a user- provided pronunciation obtained from at least one user prior to the obtaining the at least one response (“generates a phoneme text to speech sequence for the determined response… generates an overall phoneme sequence for the determined response of block 220, using the local pronunciation phoneme sequences for response portions identified”; fig.2, paragraphs 45 – 49); and
providing the at least one phoneme response to the at least one AI-based digital human in a processor-readable format, wherein the at least one AI-based digital human transforms the processor-readable format into a spoken format using at least one text-to- speech model (“the final overall phoneme sequence corresponding to the determined response of block 220, to a user as a text to speech audio output… a QA system is an artificial intelligence application executed on data processing hardware that answers questions pertaining to a given subject-matter domain presented in natural language.”; fig.2; paragraphs 45 – 49, see also paragraphs 16 - 22);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (paragraphs 36 – 39).
However, Freed et al. do not specifically teach updating, by the at least one language model, the at least one response, generated by the at least one language model, to include the at least one phoneme-based pronunciation for the one or more words, to obtain at least one phoneme-tagged response.
Austraat discloses that the TTS engine 780 may perform audio signal manipulation by assigning desired audio waveform parameters having individualized and contextualized qualities. The SSML tags are used by the TTS engine to adjust the speech pattern (e.g., a prosody element such as timbre, tone, cadence, pitch, volume, pronunciation, speaking rate, articulation, fluency, intensity, inflection, resonance, etc.). The TTS engine 780 may derive cues from the text 770 (e.g., utilizing SSML tags) regarding various phonemes (e.g., parts of speech)… The TTS engine 780 is trained by concatenating training audio data, such as training data 762 and applying algorithms to smooth phonemes and adjust prosody (paragraphs 180,181).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to updating, by the at least one language model using phoneme-based pronunciation as taught by Austraat in Freed et al., because that would help improve future interactions with the user (paragraph 202).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Freed et al. further disclose the at least one user provided the user-provided pronunciation as part of a modification of a pronunciation of a given word (“Over time the most common phoneme sequence for any particular term-accent combination may be altered for that dictionary entry based upon changes to the most common pronunciation for the term in the particular accent received as input audio data from system users.”; paragraph 19).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Freed et al. further disclose recording a spoken version of the user-provided pronunciation and converting the spoken version into the at least one phoneme-based pronunciation (“Over time the most common phoneme sequence for any particular term-accent combination may be altered for that dictionary entry based upon changes to the most common pronunciation for the term in the particular accent received as input audio data from system users.”; paragraph 19).
As per claims 4, 11, Freed et al. further disclose the user-provided pronunciation is evaluated against one or more designated sensitive words (“define domain specific words using historic user input and available dictionaries to identify domains and domain specific words.”: paragraphs 13 – 18).
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Freed et al. further disclose the user-provided pronunciation is provided by the at least one user in a feedback manner to update a pronunciation employed by the at least one AI- based digital human (“Over time the most common phoneme sequence for any particular term-accent combination may be altered for that dictionary entry based upon changes to the most common pronunciation for the term in the particular accent received as input audio data from system users.”; paragraph 19, see also paragraphs 26 - 28).
As per claims 6, 13, and 19, Freed et al. further disclose evaluating an authorization of the at least one user to modify the pronunciation of the given word (“Security provides identity verification for cloud consumers and tasks, as well as protection for data and other resources. User portal 83 provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators.”; paragraphs 13 – 18, 72).
As per claims 7, 14, and 20, Freed et al. further disclose the at least one phoneme-based pronunciation is obtained from a hierarchical phoneme repository that employs inheritance across one or more hierarchical levels (“The method indicates the relative ranking of each of the multiple pronunciations for the word or phrase in the accent specific dictionary entry for the word or phrase… maintains a cumulative count of the occurrences of the varying pronunciations for each accent specific word and modifies dictionary entries for a word after the relative ranking of different pronunciations for that word change due to user input including the word or phrase.”; paragraphs 22 – 26).
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 LEONARD SAINT-CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-4247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday.
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.
/LEONARD SAINT-CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights