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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: an/the acquisition unit configured…; an/the authentication unit configured…;.
These limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because they use generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function, nor is the generic placeholder preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification fails to show the corresponding structure for these limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As outlined above, the following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: an/the acquisition unit configured…; an/the authentication unit configured…
These claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is unclear about the corresponding structure and the block diagrams such as disclosed in Figs. 2 and 13 are insufficient since indications of corresponding structure are not provided. Additionally, the specification must disclose an algorithm or a finite sequence of steps for performing the claimed functions clearly linked to corresponding structure for performing the function.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The dependents claims have inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the number of types". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardillo et al. (US Pub. 20120284026 A1).
Cardillo discloses the following limitations:
1. An authentification device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire and detect a voice signal of an utterance voice of a speaker (para. 12- The system is configured to establish a voice communication session between a first speaker and an agent, accept a first voice signal from the first speaker,);
an authentication unit configured to authenticate whether the speaker is the person himself/herself based on collation between the voice signal detected by the acquisition unit and a database (para. 37- As was previously mentioned, the fraud protection 220 used by the institution may be susceptible to malicious parties such as identity thieves circumventing the protection. For example, a malicious party impersonating the client 202 may know their bank account number as well as the answers to their challenge questions. To augment the fraud protection 220 already used by the call center 204, a speaker verification module 212 can be used to compare characteristics of the caller's voice 216 to known characteristics of the authorized client's voice stored in a known voice characteristics database 214. In some examples, the known characteristics are created by recording the authorized client's voice 216 when the account is created. The recording can be characterized and stored in the known voice characteristics database 214, associated with parameters such as the client's account number or name (i.e., the client is enrolled). In some examples, the recorded voice signal can also be stored in the database 214.); and
a display interface configured to display, on a terminal device, an authentication status indicating whether the speaker is the person himself/herself based on an authentication result of the authentication unit, wherein the display interface updates a display content of the authentication status of the speaker by the authentication unit every time the authentication status changes.(para. 38- Again referring to FIG. 3, the speaker verification module 212 can generate a score 222 that indicates how closely the caller's voice 216 matches the known authorized client's voice. The score 222 can be presented to the representative 210 in real time through a user interface 318 (e.g., as indicators 326) and the representative 210 can use the score 222 to make a determination as to whether the caller 202 is authorized to access the client's account. In other examples, the user interface 318 can automatically analyze the score 222 and if the score 222 is less than a predetermined value, flag the transaction for later review. In some examples, based on the analyzed score the user interface 318 can present an OK or NOK indicator 328 to the representative 110 such that the representative 110 can easily discern the authenticity of the caller.)
9. The authentification device according to claim 1, wherein the display content has at least an authentication result candidate of the speaker and an authentication result reliability of the authentication. (Fig. 3, #326)
Regarding claim 10, the subject matter claimed pertain to method steps that correspond to the system elements of claim 1 and thus rejected for the same analysis. Implementing the system would have necessitated carrying through the method steps as recited.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawachi (US Pub. 20190103116 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cardillo does not specifically teach wherein when a signal indicating that an authentication start button displayed on the terminal device is pressed is acquired, the authentication unit starts authentication from the voice signal input after the acquisition of the signal. However, in the related art of performing voice recognition, Kawachi teaches wherein when a signal indicating that an authentication start button displayed on the terminal device is pressed is acquired, the authentication unit starts authentication from the voice signal input after the acquisition of the signal (see paras. 85, 130-131). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Kawachi with the disclosure of Cardillo as a known alternative way for a user to initiate a voice recognition operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 20210097990 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Cardillo does not specifically teach performing voice recognition on the voice signal, detects voice sections in which the utterance contents overlap with each other in a voice recognition result of the voice signals, and deletes voice signals in the detected overlapped voice sections. However, in the related art of voice recognition, Kim teaches detects voice sections in which the utterance contents overlap with each other in a voice recognition result of the voice signals, and deletes voice signals in the detected overlapped voice sections. (see abstract, para. 15) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this teaching of Kim with the disclosure of Cardillo as a known way to eliminate repetitive or duplicate voice signals when processing speech/voice recognitions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CORUM JR whose telephone number is (303)297-4234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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.
WILLIAM A. CORUM JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2433
william.corum2@uspto.gov
/WILLIAM A CORUM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433