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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
This Application was published as US 20250046306.
Apparent priority is 16 December 2021.
The instant Application is directed to a method of analyzing background sound in calls, and particularly for emergency calls.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: The independent Claims are directed to statutory categories:
Claim 1 is a device claim and directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 9 is a method claim and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Claim 10 is a non-transitory recording medium claim and is directed to the machine or manufacture category of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim recite a Judicially Recognized Exception? Abstract Idea? Are these Claims nevertheless considered Abstract as a Mathematical Concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (1-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), 2-commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), 3- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and fall under the judicial exception to patentable subject matter?)
The rejected Claims recite Mental Processes.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application? Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The rejected Claims do not include additional limitations that point to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore directed to a Mental Process.
Claim 1 is a generic automation of a mental process because a human agent can listen to a call and predict the environment of the caller. Prong Two of step 2A in the 101 analysis asks whether the abstract idea is integrated with a practical application. The answer is no in this instance because there is no technological solution in the Claim that “integrates” the abstract idea. The Claim only suggests that the abstract idea be applied. It does not describe an application.
[Claim 1] A sound analysis device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform: specifying a non-voice time during which a notifier who notifies occurrence of an incident is not speaking in an input sound signal; (agent writes down the time when caller begins speaking)
identifying a sound source at an occurrence site of the incident by analyzing the sound signal in the non-voice time; and (before caller begins speaking, agent hears car horns honking and writes down “honking”)
predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on the identified sound source. (agent predicts that the caller is driving a car on a road)
Step 2B: Search for Inventive Concept: Additional Element Do not amount to Significantly More: The limitations of "memory" and “processor” are well-understood, routine, and conventional machine components that are being used for their well-understood, routine, and conventional and rather generic functions. Additionally, these limitations are expressed parenthetically and lack nexus to the Claim language and as such are a separable and divisible mention to a machine. Accordingly, they are not sufficient to cause the Claim to amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
The Dependent Claims do not add limitations that could help the Claim as a whole to amount to significantly more than the Abstract idea identified for the Independent Claim:
[Claim 2] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, in which the sound scene includes a situation, an environment, and an action of a person at the occurrence site of the incident. (agent predicts that the caller has seen an accident (situation) on a road (environment) while driving (action).
[Claim 3] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: identifying a sound source of a sound related to an acceptance guideline for the occurred incident. (agent identifies that reporting an accident is an acceptable reason to call)
[Claim 4] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: outputting information indicating a situation, an environment, and an action of a person corresponding to the identified sound scene. (agent writes down the prediction)
[Claim 5] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: performing voice recognition on a voice included in a sound signal in a voice time excluding the non-voice time in an input sound signal. (agent listens to the caller say “there was an accident”)
[Claim 6] The sound analysis device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on a result of recognition, of a voice included in the sound signal in the voice time in addition to the sound source identified from the sound signal in the non-voice time. (agent confirms based on the speech that there was an accident)
[Claim 7] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: recognizing an emotion from a sound signal in a voice time excluding the non-voice time in an input sound signal. (agent hears that the caller is calm)
[Claim 8] The sound analysis device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on the emotion from the sound signal in the voice time in addition to the sound source identified from the sound signal in the non- voice time. (agent predicts that the caller was not involved in the accident because of the calm emotion)
The additional limitations introduced by the Dependent Claims are not sufficient as additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or as additional elements that cause the Claim as a whole to amount to substantially more than the underlying abstract idea.
With respect to Independent Claim 9 and independent Claim 10, which have limitations similar to the limitations of Claim 1, the limitations of “non-transitory recording medium storing a program” are expressed parenthetically and lack nexus to the Claim language and as such are a separable and divisible mention to a machine. Accordingly, they do not include additional limitations that cause the Claim as a whole to amount to more than the underlying abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Ramprashad.
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses: [Claim 1] A sound analysis device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform: ([0036] discloses a server which would include memory configured to store instructions and at least one processor. )
specifying a non-voice time during which a notifier who notifies occurrence of an incident is not speaking in an input sound signal; ("[0029] In the sound source characteristic analyzing step, the event sound signal and / or the scene sound signal are separated from the mixed sound source signal to be analyzed by the object sound source separation method, and the frequency characteristics thereof are analyzed to analyze the event sound frequency characteristics of the mixed sound source (s) and / Or extract the scene sound frequency characteristic (s). At this time, the type and number of frequency characteristics to be analyzed are preferably the same as that in constructing the event sound characteristic DB and / or the scene sound characteristic DB." )
identifying a sound source at an occurrence site of the incident by analyzing the sound signal in the non-voice time; and ("[0021]...For example, in a mixed sound recording where two people are talking on a roadside with lots of pedestrians and vehicles, when the user selects the conversation sounds of two conversations, each of the two conversations becomes an event sound and the remaining noise becomes a scene sound..." )
predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on the identified sound source. ("[0022] The present invention is to provide a method for recognizing what kind of event occurs in the mixed sound source generation site as it is, or after separating the event sound and scene sound, and what environment the mixed sound source generation site is. To this end, the present invention provides a method of checking whether there is an event or a scene in the scene from the mixed sound source (non-specific event recognition method) and a method of identifying a specific event or scene in the scene from the mixed sound source (specific event recognition method)..." )
Min does not explicitly disclose that the non-voice portion is separated by time. (Min separates it by frequency.)
Ramprashad discloses: specifying a non-voice time during which a notifier who notifies occurrence of an incident is not speaking in an input sound signal; ("[0042] Voice activity detection is an optional step. Its main function is to eliminate dead space, to improve utilization efficiency of more compute-intensive resources, such as the ASR engine, or of storage resources. VAD algorithms are well known in the art. See https://en.wikipedia/org/wiki/Voice_activity_detection (incorporated by reference herein)." )
Min and Ramprashad are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they disclose methods of analyzing calls for a call center. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Min with a voice activity as disclosed by Ramprashad to separate the voiced and non-voiced segments and analyze them separately. Doing so would have been beneficial to extract the scene sound (Min [0029]). This combination falls under simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See MPEP 2141, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 2, Min discloses: [Claim 2] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, in which the sound scene includes a situation, an environment, and an action of a person at the occurrence site of the incident. (Min discloses situations ("subway atmospheres, playground atmospheres, outlet hall atmospheres"), environments ("spatial environment (subway, playground, etc.)"), and actions ("situational atmosphere (when the subway is entering, the goal is shouted)") in [0021]. As a further example, in [0021], Min discloses "For example, in a mixed sound recording where two people are talking on a roadside with lots of pedestrians and vehicles, when the user selects the conversation sounds of two conversations, each of the two conversations becomes an event sound and the remaining noise becomes a scene sound." - in this example, "with pedestrians and vehicles is a situation", on a roadside" is an environment, and "talking" is an action of a person. )
Regarding claim 3, Min discloses: [Claim 3] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: identifying a sound source of a sound related to an acceptance guideline for the occurred incident. ("[0011] In addition, by applying a method of recognizing an event or a scene according to the present invention, for example, a report call of the 119 safety report center, it is possible to more accurately determine whether it is an urgent situation, a prank call or a non-emergency call." - determining if the situation is urgent rather than a prank or non-emergency call reads on an acceptance guideline for the incident. )
Regarding claim 4, Min discloses: [Claim 4] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: outputting information indicating a situation, an environment, and an action of a person corresponding to the identified sound scene. ("[0042] In the comparison detection step, if it is confirmed that an event and / or scene having the same or similar frequency characteristics (d) exists, 'the user is notified and warned that such an event and / or scene (situation) has occurred in the scene. A notification step can be added." )
Regarding claim 5, Min discloses: [Claim 5] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: performing voice recognition on a voice included in a sound signal in a voice time excluding the non-voice time in an input sound signal. ("[0044] First, we analyze the voice and sound based on the acoustic big data (including both voice and surrounding sound) that are accumulated in the National Emergency Management Agency's report phone DB (approximately 20 million calls). The frequency characteristic (d) of the event sound signal and / or the scene sound signal for each event and / or scene is analyzed and stored in the event sound characteristic DB and / or the scene sound characteristic DB (DB construction step)." )
Regarding claim 6, Min discloses: [Claim 6] The sound analysis device according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on a result of recognition, of a voice included in the sound signal in the voice time in addition to the sound source identified from the sound signal in the non-voice time. ("[0004] Therefore, in addition to the information of the reporter's words through the 119 report call in real time, it analyzes the voice and sound of the sound received during the call process and deduces supplementary information on the authenticity of the report content and the degree of emergency..." )
Claim 9 is a method claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is a non-transitory recording medium claim with limitations corresponding to the limitations of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Ramprashad as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Newstadt.
Regarding claim 7, Min discloses: [Claim 7] The sound analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: recognizing an emotion from a sound signal in a voice time excluding the non-voice time in an input sound signal. ("[0045] 119When a call is received, the counselor analyzes the conversation and mood and classifies emergency / non-emergency by manual and experience." )
Min does not explicitly disclose that the emotion is recognized by the processor.
Newstadt discloses: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: recognizing an emotion from a sound signal in a voice time excluding the non-voice time in an input sound signal. ("(69) It should be noted that although transcription to text is described, the analysis of the content of the call could additionally or alternatively be based on intonation, audio detection of words, detection of emotion, whether a caller speaks slowly or quickly, etc. For instance, the “transcription” may include converting one or more of these factors into some machine-readable format." Col 14, para 1)
Min, Ramprashad, and Newstadt are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they disclose methods of detecting information from phone calls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with detection of emotion to validate the call as non-fraudulent. Doing so would have been beneficial to prevent wasting of administrative power and delays in emergency dispatch (Min [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Min discloses: [Claim 8] The sound analysis device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on the emotion from the sound signal in the voice time in addition to the sound source identified from the sound signal in the non- voice time. ("[0045] 119When a call is received, the counselor analyzes the conversation and mood and classifies emergency / non-emergency by manual and experience." )
Min does not explicitly disclose that the prediction is made by the processor.
Newstadt discloses: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: predicting a sound scene at the occurrence site of the incident based on the emotion from the sound signal in the voice time in addition to the sound source identified from the sound signal in the non- voice time. ("(69) It should be noted that although transcription to text is described, the analysis of the content of the call could additionally or alternatively be based on intonation, audio detection of words, detection of emotion, whether a caller speaks slowly or quickly, etc. For instance, the “transcription” may include converting one or more of these factors into some machine-readable format. " Col 14, para 1 - see also "(54) In some embodiments, if a call is flagged as spam or fraudulent, or if another discrepancy is detected, the caller may be sent to an automatic verification process before the call may be continued. For instance, the call validation system 123 may interrupt the call and redirect the caller to a trusted authentication service, such as the trusted attribute validation service 119." Col 11, para 8)
See claim 7 for motivation statement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON C MEIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/JON CHRISTOPHER MEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights