DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on December 15th, 2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 4~10 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 4~10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta et al. hereinafter Gutta (U.S 2008/0235808) in view of Van Den Berg (U.S 2021/0304775).
Regarding Claim 1,
Gutta taught an information processing system comprising rising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire biometric information about a target [¶15, multiple instances of biometric taken; ¶19, biometric information obtained from the user]:
generate a digital watermark on the basis of the biometric information [¶16, implies that a biometric watermark is generated since a comparison is made between the biometric identifier provided by the user and the watermark embedded in the content]; and
acquire audio data comprising speech of the target [¶14, content data from memory, DVD, or CD]; and
add the digital watermark to the audio data [¶2, watermarks are embedded signatures in content (e.g., video and audio content); ¶19, biometric information embedded in the content].
Gutta did not specifically teach perform biometric authentication on the target at a plurality of times during recording of the audio data; and store a result history of the biometric authentication at the plurality of times.
Van Den Berg taught perform biometric authentication on the target at a plurality of times during recording of the audio data [¶53, prompting the speaker to utter a phrase and then recording audio data that is representative of the uttered phrase; ¶56, authentication platform 258 can examine the audio data to determine whether to authenticate the unknown speaker 252 as a given individual; ¶113, the authentication platform can identify a portion of the first audio data in which the phrase is uttered by the human speaker over an interval of time; ¶115] and
store a result history of the biometric authentication at the plurality of times [¶57, notification is presented on electronic device to visually indicate that authentication was completed successfully. Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would have easily substituted providing a notification with logging the authentication results since both methods are indicative of whether the speaker is authentic or not].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Van Den Berg’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Gutta, because the combination allows for increased security due to its ability to adapt the monitoring duration of the speaker [¶66].
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the claims are similar in scope to claim 1 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta and Van Den Berg in view of Aihara et al. hereinafter Aihara (U.S 2020/0028955).
Regarding Claim 2,
Gutta-Van Den Berg-Aihara taught acquire first audio data from a first terminal corresponding to a first target and acquire second audio data from a second terminal corresponding to a second target who accompanies the first target, and add the digital watermark based on the biometric information acquired from at least one of the first target and the second target, to synthesized audio data obtained by synthesizing the first audio data and the second audio data [¶227, Fig. 32, voice data A, C and E received from mobile 1200A and voice data B, D, and F received from mobile 1200B. Since Gutta taught generating a biometric watermark for the target, it would have been obvious to apply the same methodology of generating a plurality of watermarks for multiple voice data of Aihara].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Aihara’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Gutta and Van Den Berg, because the combination would decrease the amount of voice data and reduce the communication amount of data in the communication system [¶229].
Claims 4~6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta and Van Den Berg in view of Kakoyiannis et al. hereinafter Kakoyiannis (U.S 2020/0013380).
Regarding Claim 4,
Gutta-Van Den Berg-Kakoyiannis taught accumulate the audio data to which the digital watermark is added, in association with at least one of a keyword included in speech content, information about the target, and a date and time of the speech; and extract the audio data matching a search query from a plurality of pieces of audio data accumulated, by using the search query comprising at least one of a keyword included in speech content, information about the target, and a date and time of the speech [¶88, users' search results by keyword or phrase are able to provide highly relevant sound bites extracted from a multitude of shows and/or episodes; ¶33, determine at least one keyword in the at least one audio track from the audio content, identify at least one visual asset corresponding to the determined at least one keyword in an associated database].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Kakoyiannis’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Gutta and Van Den Berg, because the combination would does not require the listener to listen to any one full episode of any show to arrive at their search term point of deepest interest [¶88].
Regarding Claim 5,
Gutta-Van Den Berg-Kakoyiannis taught display a seek bar in a display aspect in which a part matching the search query in the audio data can be visually recognized, in a case where the audio data extracted by the extraction unit are reproduced [¶88, users' search results by keyword or phrase are able to provide highly relevant sound bites extracted from a multitude of shows and/or episodes; ¶33, determine at least one keyword in the at least one audio track from the audio content, identify at least one visual asset corresponding to the determined at least one keyword in an associated database]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 4, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 6,
Gutta-Van Den Berg-Kakoyiannis taught display a seek bar in a display aspect in which a part reproduced many times in the audio data can be visually recognized, in a case where the audio data to which the digital watermark is added, are reproduced [¶88, users' search results by keyword or phrase are able to provide highly relevant sound bites extracted from a multitude of shows and/or episodes; ¶91, data storage 144 may include data relating to image rights, for example, instructions on the number of reproductions to be made]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 4, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 8,
Gutta-Van Den Berg-Kakoyiannis taught add a common tag to the audio data to which the digital watermark is added, and to other content data corresponding to the audio data; and search for the audio data and the other content data by using the tag [¶76 enrich each audio segment 126 with at least one textual element 122 and may work in concert with a voice-recognition module 112. In some embodiments, the textual element 122 is at least one meta-tag and/or keyword]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 4, applies here as well.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutta and Van Den Berg in view of Eber et al. hereinafter Eber (U.S 2017/0099149).
Regarding Claim 7,
Gutta-Van Den Berg-Eber taught store information about a specific user who is a user different from the target and who is permitted to reproduce the audio data to which the digital watermark is added; and determine whether or not the audio data are reproduced by the specific user, on the basis of the information about the specific user stored [¶37, share songs between sender and recipient by checking permissions and watermarking process].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Eber’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Gutta and Van Den Berg, because the combination would provide the benefit of increased security and less music piracy [¶41].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443