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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “a device comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire and detect a voice signal of an utterance voice of a 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; a storage unit configured to store, as question example sentences, a plurality of questions for acquiring a voice signal used for authentication of the speaker by the authentication unit; a display interface configured to display the question example sentence for the speaker on a terminal device; and an example sentence selection unit configured to select a question example sentence to be displayed on the terminal device from the plurality of question example sentences stored in the storage unit.”
The limitations of the claim, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Each of the limitation in the claim can be performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation and judgement. For example, the limitation to “acquire and detect a voice signal of an utterance voice of a speaker” can be done by a person listening to another person during a conversation. The limitation 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” can be completed by listening to the spoken words from an old friend and determine that it is the particular friend from the past (i.e. collation between the detected voice signal and a database). The limitation to “to store, as question example sentences, a plurality of questions for acquiring a voice signal used for authentication of the speaker” can be completed by preparing a list of questions to ask the old friend to verify that he or she is that particular friend from the past. The limitation to “display the question example sentence for the speaker on the terminal device” can be completed by typing the question on a computer device to display or writing the question on paper. The limitation to “select a question example sentence to be displayed on the terminal device from the plurality of question example sentences stored” can be completed by deciding which of the prepared list of questions to ask the friend. Therefore, if the limitations of the claim, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then they fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a device to perform the processing steps. The device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a device to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, the rationale provided for the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated herein.
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takashima et al. (US Pub. 2022/0139402 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Takashima teaches an authentication device (see Fig.1 (10) and paragraph [0029]), comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire and detect a voice signal of an utterance voice of a speaker (see Fig.1 (14) and paragraph [0029]);
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 (see Fig.1 (12,15), Fig.2 (1B) and paragraph [0044], comparing voice features from the speaker to the features registered in the authentication database);
a storage unit configured to store, as question example sentences, a plurality of questions for acquiring a voice signal used for authentication of the speaker by the authentication unit (see Fig.1 (12), Fig.2 (2B) and paragraph [0035]);
a display interface configured to display the question example sentence for the speaker on a terminal device (see Fig.1 (13) and paragraph [0038], the output unit outputs instructions to display the questions on a display device);
and an example sentence selection unit configured to select a question example sentence to be displayed on the terminal device from the plurality of question example sentences stored in the storage unit (see Fig.1 (11,12,13), Fig.2 (2B) and paragraphs [0052-0055], the output unit selects and submits a question based on the acquires user input data).
Regarding Claim 8, Takashima further teaches wherein the question example sentence is a question sentence that makes the speaker answer at least one of a telephone number, a date of birth, and personal information of the speaker (see Fig.3 and paragraphs [0036-0037]).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US Pub. 2022/0139402 A1) in view of Ortiz et al. (US Pub. 2021/0173916 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Takashima teaches the device of Claim 1 but fails to teach a phoneme analysis unit configured to extract phonemes contained in the voice signal of the speaker detected by the acquisition unit, wherein the example sentence selection unit selects a question example sentence that prompts an utterance including a phoneme not included in the voice signal, based on the phonemes extracted by the phoneme analysis unit.
Ortiz, however, teaches a processing unit configured to extract audio features for user authentication (see Fig.1 (101,109,113) paragraph [0161] and paragraph [0165], the stored machine learning model extracts the audio features from the spoken pass phrases), compare the phonemes of a user speaking a pass phrase to the stored reference phonemes (see Fig.1 (101,115) and paragraphs [0038-0039]) and present a specific question to a user when there is an overlap in the phonemes or phoneme transitions during phoneme comparison process (see Fig.1 (101,115) and paragraphs [0115-0116]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to include to Takashima’s authentication device a phoneme analysis unit configured to extract phonemes contained in the voice signal of the speaker detected by the acquisition unit, wherein the example sentence selection unit selects a question example sentence that prompts an utterance including a phoneme not included in the voice signal. The motivation would be to perform audio feature extraction from the user voice signal for comparison with the features stored in the user authentication database, and to present a specific question to the user in which the answer to the question includes phonemes that are not present in the voice signal.
Regarding Claim 3, Takashima further teaches wherein a display interface displays, on the terminal device, the question example sentence selected by the example sentence selection unit (see Fig.1 (13,23) and paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Claim 4, Takashima teaches wherein the display interface displays, on the terminal device, the question example sentence selected by the example sentence selection unit immediately after the start of authentication (see Fig.1 (11,21), paragraph [0033] and paragraph [0038], the user authentication starts after the user inputs identification information), but fails to teach wherein the authentication unit calculates a similarity between a voice signal of an utterance voice that the speaker answers to the question example sentence and a voice signal registered in the database, and authenticates the speaker when the similarity is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value.
Ortiz, however, teaches determining the confidence level of a user speaking a pass phrase by comparing the phonemes or speech characteristics with the stored reference phonemes and speech characteristics (see Fig.1 (101,115), paragraph [0041] and paragraph [0045]), and authenticating user if the determined confidence level is above a predetermined threshold value (see Fig.1 (101,115), paragraph [0041] and paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Takashima’s authentication device to calculate a similarity between a voice signal of an utterance voice that the speaker answers to the question example sentence and a voice signal registered in the database, and to authenticate the speaker when the similarity is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value. The motivation would be to set a confidence level criteria for authenticating a user.
Regarding Claim 5, Takashima teaches wherein the display interface displays, on the terminal device, the question example sentence selected by the example sentence selection unit when a determination result by the authentication unit is acquired (see Fig.1 (11,12,13), Fig.2B, paragraph [0038] and paragraphs [0052-0055]), but fails to teach wherein the authentication unit calculates a similarity between the voice signal acquired after the start of authentication, and determines whether display of the question example sentence is necessary when the similarity is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value.
Ortiz, however, teaches determining the confidence level of a user speaking a pass phrase by comparing the phonemes or speech characteristics with the stored reference phonemes and speech characteristics (see Fig.1 (101,115), paragraph [0041] and paragraph [0045]), and authenticating user if the determined confidence level is above a predetermined threshold value (see Fig.1 (101,115), paragraph [0041] and paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Takashima’s authentication device to unit calculate a similarity between the voice signal acquired after the start of authentication, and to determine whether to display the question example sentence when the similarity is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value. The motivation would be to display a second example question to the user when the determined confidence level of the user authentication process is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US Pub. 2022/0139402 A1) in view of Park et al. (US Patent 10,566,011 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Takashima teaches the authentication device of Claim 1 but fail to teach wherein the authentication device is configured to start authentication on the voice signal when a start button displayed on a terminal device is pressed.
Park, however, teaches a manually starting a speaker authentication process from a terminal device by pressing a start button (see Col.1, Line 31-34).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure Takashima’s authentication device to start authentication on the voice signal when a start button displayed on a terminal device is pressed. The motivation would be to manually begin the speaker authentication process by pressing a button on a terminal device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima et al. (US Pub. 2022/0139402 A1) in view of Ortiz et al. (US Pub. 2021/0173916 A1), and in further view of Huang et al. (US Pub. 2011/0184723 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Takashima teaches an example sentence selection unit configured to select a question example sentence to be displayed on the terminal device from the plurality of question example sentences stored in the storage unit (see Fig.1 (11,12,13), Fig.2 (2B) and paragraphs [0052-0055], the output unit selects and submits a question based on the acquires user input data), and Ortiz teaches extracting audio features for user authentication (see Fig.1 (101,109,113) paragraph [0161] and paragraph [0165]) and comparing the phonemes of a user speaking a pass phrase to the stored reference phonemes (see Fig.1 (101,115) and paragraphs [0038-0039]), but Takashima and Ortiz fail to teach wherein the phoneme analysis unit calculates the number of extracted phonemes, and the example sentence selection unit selects a question example sentence including phonemes whose number is less than a predetermined threshold value.
Huang, however, teaches determining the number of phonemes in a query phoneme sequence and providing a length constraint for the query phoneme sequence to have less than a predetermined number of phonemes.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the authentication device to calculate the number of extracted phonemes, and select a question example sentence including phonemes whose number is less than a predetermined threshold value. The motivation would be to provide a constraint for the length or size of the example question to be displayed to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU B HANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0582.
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.
/VU B HANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights