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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/5/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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: “a sound source separation unit” in claim 1, “a perturbation acquisition unit” in claim 12, “a sound source separation unit” in claim 14, and “a sound source separation unit” in claim 15.
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
9. The specification is enabling for a portion of the subject matter claimed but the enablement is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Specifically, the specification fails to show how the “sound source separation unit” or the “perturbation acquisition unit”, which appears in no combination with any element or means, can perform the claimed functions. MPEP 2164.08(a) states: A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor.). When claims depend on a recited property, a fact situation comparable to Hyatt is possible, where the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor. Therefore, single means claim 1-15 are subjected to an undue breadth rejection. See In re Hyatt 218 USPQ 195 (CAFC 1983).
10. 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.
11. Claim 15 is 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. The preamble of the claim recites “an information processing method”, however no steps are listed in the claim. It is unclear what the method is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recites “a sound source separation unit that performs sound source separation on a mixed sound signal obtained by mixing a plurality of sound source signals and further mixing a perturbation optimized to improve performance of the sound source separation”.
The limitation of sound separation on a mixed signal, as drafted, is a process, 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 sound source separation unit”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “performing sounds separation” in the context of this claim encompasses identifying and separating sounds which a human can do in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element, using sound source separation unit to separate a mixed sound signal. This element in this step is recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using 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. 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 sound source separation unit to separate a mixed sound signal amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 1 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 12 recites “a perturbation acquisition unit that acquires a perturbation to be added to a mixed sound signal in which a plurality of sound source signals is mixed, wherein the perturbation acquisition unit acquires the perturbation by learning so as to minimize a separation error based on a difference between a predetermined sound source signal and a separation signal obtained by sound source separation from the mixed sound signal”.
The limitation of acquiring a perturbation through learning, as drafted, is a process, 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 perturbation acquisition unit”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “acquires” in the context of this claim encompasses receiving noise input on a number of occasions, which a human can do in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element, using a perturbation acquisition unit to acquire noise. This element in this is steps recited at a high-level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using 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. 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 perturbation acquisition unit to acquire noise 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 is also rejected for the same reasons provided in independent claim 12 above. The dependent claim, including the further recited limitation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the additional elements, taken individually and in combination do not contribute to an inventive concept. In other words, the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
14. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a program per se. A software/program to be statutory under 101 must be embedded in a statutory computer readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-4, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sose, S., Mali, S., & Mahajan, S. P. (2019, July). Sound Source Separation Using Neural Network. In 2019 10th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. (hereinafter Sose).
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 15 Sose teaches an information processing device comprising / an information processing method comprising / a program for causing a computer to execute an information processing method, the method comprising:
a sound source separation unit that performs sound source separation on a mixed sound signal obtained by mixing a plurality of sound source signals and further mixing a perturbation optimized to improve performance of the sound source separation (p. 3, C. Experiment results, “the output of a separation module is to get recovered the original signal from the mixed signal”; p. 2, A. DNN structure, right column, paragraph 2, “For the testing of the model the similar sound sources are provided which are mixed with the noise”; p.3, IV. Experimental Details, A. Training Dataset. “The noise is the different random audio which are mix with the training audio data. The different combinations of the data are made as the 600 sound are mix with different noise signal. The similarly the 120-audio signal are mix with noise is used as a testing dataset”; p.3, IV. Experimental Details, A. Training Dataset, “The noise signal is approximately 4min long. While creating dataset the training set use random 10 slice which are from the noise signal. The testing utterances at the -2db. At the testing the noise part is
used are different to ensure the testing and training data are distinct from each other”).
Regarding claim 2, Sose teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
Additionally, Sose teaches wherein the perturbation is set to be difficult to perceive with respect to the mixed sound signal (FIG. 4, examiner interprets the noise signal to be difficult to perceive due to low amplitude of the signal as shown in the image).
Regarding claim 3, Sose teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends.
Additionally, Sose teaches wherein the perturbation is set to be difficult to perceive with respect to the mixed sound signal on a basis of an auditory psychological model (FIG. 2, examiner interprets the source separation model in figure 2 as the auditory psychological model).
Regarding claim 4, Sose teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends.
Additionally, Sose teaches wherein the perturbation is a perturbation optimized to improve performance of the sound source separation based on a specific sound source separation model (p.3, IV. Experimental Details, A. Training Dataset, “The noise signal is approximately 4min long. While creating dataset the training set use random 10 slice which are from the noise signal. The testing utterances at the -2db. At the testing the noise part is used are different to ensure the testing and training data are distinct from each other”).
Regarding independent claim 12, Sose teaches a perturbation acquisition unit that acquires a perturbation to be added to a mixed sound signal in which a plurality of sound source signals is mixed (p. 3, IV. Experimental Details, A. Training Dataset “The noise is the different random audio which are mix with the training audio data. The different combinations of the data are made as the 600 sound are mix with different noise signal”),
wherein the perturbation acquisition unit acquires the perturbation by learning so as to minimize a separation error based on a difference between a predetermined sound source signal and a separation signal obtained by sound source separation from the mixed sound signal (p. 2, left column , 3rd paragraph, “The where the output provided by DNN is features of a noise and clean speech. So, these features are extracted from feature extraction method and provide to first layer of DNN. After which the weights are calculated according the functions are applied at the node. The
mean square error method is used to calculate the error between the desired and the obtained output”).
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sose in view of Koretzky et al. US 20180122403 A1 (hereinafter Koretzky).
Regarding claim 5, Sose teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends.
Sose fails to teach wherein the perturbation is a perturbation optimized to improve performance of the sound source separation based on a plurality of different sound source separation models.
However, Koretzky teaches wherein the perturbation is a perturbation optimized to improve performance of the sound source separation based on a plurality of different sound source separation models (FIG. 10A, [0113] “stacked model DNN implemented by audio source separation logic 116 for performing audio source separation”)
Sose in view of Koretzky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of audio separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques sound source separation using neural networks of Sose with the technique of sound separation using a plurality of sound separation models taught by Koretzky in order to improve real-time audio source separation. (see Koretzky [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Sose in view of Koretzky teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 6 depends.
Additionally, Koretzky teaches wherein the plurality of sound source separation models are sound source separation models having different sound source separation numbers ([0113] “The stacked model DNN will output a one-dimensional vector of size 2052 (e.g., 513×4), examiner interprets vector as separation number”)
Regarding claim 7, Sose in view of Koretzky teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 7 depends.
Additionally, Koretzky teaches wherein the plurality of sound source separation models are sound source separation models for sound source separation performed in parallel with the mixed sound signal ([0114] “The merged model DNN of FIG. 11 is a hybrid of the single stem model for five layers, but that subsequently branches into multiple components to train and learn components in parallel”).
Regarding claim 8, Sose in view of Koretzky teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 8 depends.
Additionally, Koretzky teaches wherein the plurality of sound source separation models includes at least a first sound source separation model and a second sound source separation model (FIG. 10A, 10B), and
sound source separation processing based on the first sound source separation model is performed on the mixed sound signal, and sound source separation processing based on the second sound source separation model is performed on a sound source separation result based on the first sound source separation model ([0113] “The stacked model thus illustrates a concatenation of multiple single stem models into a single DNN”, examiner interprets the output of a single stem model to be the input of the next model)
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sose in view of Nakadai et al. US 8990078 B2 (hereinafter Nakadai).
Regarding claim 9, Sose teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends.
Sose fails to teach wherein additional information of the sound source signal is mixed with the sound source signal as audio data.
However, Nakadai teaches wherein additional information of the sound source signal is mixed with the sound source signal as audio data ([Column 16, line 23-35] “The sound source localization unit 203 estimates the direction for each sound source based on the audio signal for each channel input from the audio decoding unit 202. In order to estimate the direction of the sound source, the sound source localization unit 203 uses the MUSIC method, for example. The sound source localization unit 203 outputs the sound source direction information indicating the estimated direction for each sound source to the sound source separation unit 204, the display information generation unit 207, and the control information generation unit 214”)
Sose in view of Nakadai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of audio separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques sound source separation using neural networks of Sose with the technique of using a decoder that reproduces additional information taught by Nakadai in order to improve an information presentation system, and an information transmission system. (see Nakadai [Column 1, line 16-17]).
Regarding claim 10, Sose in view of Nakadai teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends.
Additionally, Nakadai teaches wherein the additional information is information indicating a reproduction position of the sound source signal ([Column 16, line 23-35]).
Regarding claim 11, Sose in view of Nakadai teaches all of the limitations of claim 9, upon which claim 11 depends.
Additionally, Nakadai teaches a decoder that reproduces additional information included in the sound source signal from the sound source signal subjected to the sound source separation by the sound source separation unit ([Column 16, line 23-35]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sose in view of Wichern et al. US 20220101869 A1 (hereinafter Wichern).
Regarding claim 13, Sose teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends.
Sose fails to teach wherein the separation error includes a regularization term for making the perturbation difficult to perceive.
However, Wichern teaches wherein the separation error includes a regularization term for making the perturbation difficult to perceive ([0092] The QBE system is trained to minimize the tPSA objective in equation (3) based on a target source s.sub.n,c, where the target source used to train the neural network 105 is determined both by the query and a given level in the hierarchy. In an example embodiment, the loss functions includes a term directly defined on the query embedding space.)
Sose in view of Wichern are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are the same field of audio separation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques sound source separation using neural networks of Sose with the technique of using a term for error in the context of difficult to perceive noises taught by Wichern in order to improve a system and a method for hierarchical audio source separation. (see Wichern [0001]).
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 20210312902 A1) teaches a method and electronic device for separating mixed sound signal. The method includes: obtaining a first hidden variable representing a human voice feature and a second hidden variable representing an accompaniment sound feature by inputting feature data of a mixed sound extracted from a mixed sound signal into a coding model for the mixed sound; obtaining first feature data of a human voice and second feature data of an accompaniment sound by inputting the first hidden variable and the second hidden variable into a first decoding model for the human voice and a second decoding model for the accompaniment sound respectively; and obtaining, based on the first feature data and the second feature data, the human voice and the accompaniment sound.
Citerin et al. (US 20160180865 A1) teaches a sound source separation method comprising the steps of determining at least one location of at least one sound source based on video data, determining initial estimates of at least two parameters characterizing an audio signal emitted by said sound source, said initial estimates being determined based on said at least one location, performing an expectation-maximization method for determining final estimates of said parameters, and separating the audio signal from a combination of audio signals based on said final estimates of said parameters.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEESHAN SHAIKH whose telephone number is (703)756-1730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/ZEESHAN MAHMOOD SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658