Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abramson (US 2018/0293483).
Regarding Claim 1:
Abramson discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a voice assistant engine executed by one or more processors, a voice input in a non-standardized form (Abramson: ¶[0038]-[0039] discloses a voice input device that arrives through a computing device that contains processors);
generating, by the voice assistant engine, a voice output responsive to the voice input by associating the voice input with an identification corresponding to a selected entity (Abramson: ¶[0052] discloses providing a response from the chatbot from user input; ¶[0021]-[0022] a user decides the chatbots voice font of a specific person (i.e., a selected entity)),
determining a response to the voice input, and generating the voice output in a voice of the selected entity according to the response (Abramson: ¶[0052] the chatbot produces a response to the submitted dialogue using the personality of the specific person, the voice font of the person may be used in this response (i.e., the voice output response is done with the characteristics of the selected entity person));
and outputting, by the voice assistant engine, the voice output (Abramson: ¶[0016] ¶[0052] the chatbot converses with users via textual or audio, it provides to a user interacting with a chat bot, one or more questions and responses, via interfaces on client devices/various computing systems. Once a voice font is applied and the chat bot is conversing in the voice of the specific person, the system outputs the voice synthesized voice font to the user).
Regarding Claim 2:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the voice assistant engine utilizes voice cloning services to generate the voice output utilizing the voice of the selected entity (Abramson: ¶[0016] discloses a voice synthesis algorithm of a specific person, i.e., voice cloning).
Regarding Claim 3:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the voice cloning service accesses a specific voice profile associated with a voice identifier of the selected entity, the specific voice profile including predefined characteristics or pre-loaded voice samples of a licensed voice of the selected entity (Abramson: ¶[0015] ¶[0031] discloses specific information associated with a specific person or entity such as a name nickname an occupation etc., as well as predefined characteristics (tone, style, voice)).
Regarding Claim 4:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the voice assistant engine receives the voice input from a user through a microphone of a device and outputs the voice output through a speaker of the device (Abramson: Fig. 4B block 554 audio interface, ¶[0039] discloses a voice input device).
Regarding Claim 5:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input to determine an intent of the voice input and generate the response (Abramson: ¶[0034] discloses interacting includes determining the subject and intent of dialogue).
Regarding Claim 7:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selected entity comprises a celebrity or a popular personality licensed by the voice assistant engine (Abramson: ¶[0014] discloses the specific person comprises a celebrity).
Regarding Claim 10:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selected entity is identified by a voice identifier used to match the voice input to one or more subscription licenses or one or more entities (Abramson: teaches that voice data such as interviews, performances and other recordings of a specific persona are collected and stored in association with that specific person/entity and that this associated voice data is used to build and apply a voice font for that person).
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
It is noted Abramson mentions a computer program at least at ¶[0034].
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 has been analyzed with regard to claim 2 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 has been analyzed with regard to claim 3 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 has been analyzed with regard to claim 4(see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 has been analyzed with regard to claim 5 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 has been analyzed with regard to claim 7 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 has been analyzed with regard to claim 10 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation used above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. Claims 6 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson (US 2018/0293483) in view of Silverman (US 2010/0082329).
Regarding Claim 6:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input to determine a language of the voice input to identify an expected language of the voice output. However, Silverman discloses wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input to determine a language of the voice input to identify an expected language of the voice output (Silverman: ¶[0014] discloses detecting the native language of a text string, and further using that to choose the text-to-speech voice and phoneme set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining a language of the voice input to identify an expected language of the voice output into Abramson through Silverman. Abramson and Silverman are within the same field of endeavor of speech synthesis, e.g., both disclose systems for producing synthetic speech based on user input. The motivation for doing this is “there is a need to provide users of portable electronic devices with non-visual identification of media content delivered on such devices.” As disclosed in ¶[0005] of Silverman.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 has been analyzed with regard to claim 6 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
6. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of Gao (US 2023/0118412).
Regarding Claim 8:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input with a previous voice input or one or more historical voice inputs to maintain a conversational context for the voice output. However, Gao discloses wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input with a previous voice input or one or more historical voice inputs to maintain a conversational context for the voice output (Gao: ¶[0064]-[0069 discloses using previous conversation threads and historical behavior/signals to maintain personalized conversational context for future interactions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a previous voice input or one or more historical voice inputs to maintain a conversational context for the voice output into Abramson through Gao. Abramson and Gao are within the same field of endeavor of speech synthesis, e.g., both disclose systems for producing synthetic speech based on user input. The motivation for doing this is “the assistant system 140 may further allow users to provide positive/negative signals for objects they interact with to train and improve personalized models for them” as disclosed in ¶[0066] of Gao.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 has been analyzed with regard to claim 8 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
7. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson in view of Sukumar (2021/0358496).
Regarding Claim 9:
Abramson further discloses the method of claim 1, except wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input using natural-language processing to transcribe the voice input into a text file and generate a script responsive to the voice input from the text file as the response. However, Sukumar discloses wherein the voice assistant engine processes the voice input using natural-language processing to transcribe the voice input into a text file and generate a script responsive to the voice input from the text file as the response (Sukumar: ¶[0010]-[0011] transcribes voice input into a text file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly transcribe the voice input into a text file into Abramson through Gao. Abramson and Gao are within the same field of endeavor of natural language processing, e.g., both disclose systems for producing synthetic speech based on user input. Abramson already discloses a voice assistant that processes user input to determine a subject or intent and generate a corresponding response in the voice of a selected entity and discloses vocal input and text processing, it merely does not disclose explicitly disclose transcribing voice into text. The motivation for doing this is “conventional voice assistant systems will not understand the verbal input, and will fail to turn on the cabin heater and warm the vehicle cabin.” as disclosed in ¶[0003] of Sukumar. In other words, it is useful to handle spoken inputs for dialogue systems, doing so is a straightforward and well known voice assistant problem.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 has been analyzed with regard to claim 9 (see rejection above) and
is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN SCOTT MCLEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4599. The examiner can normally be reached "Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every 2nd 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, 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.
/IAN SCOTT MCLEAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654