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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on 5/29/25 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been canceled. New claims 2-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 6, 11 being independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/952,188 (and provisional patent application 63/24815), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 1-20 recites “audio clips generation based on voice activity detector” along with payload buffers (e.g. “beginning to generate a new audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream”). Application No. 17/952,188 (and application 63/24815), fails to provide adequate support for this limitation. Accordingly, claim 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220115020 to Bradley et al. (“Bradley”).
As to claim 11, Bradley discloses an apparatus for generating audio clips from a continuous audio stream for processing in an Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) engine [Fig. 3], comprising: an audio signal processor that is configured to analyze a received continuous audio stream in order to generate detection signals that indicate when certain activity is occurring or not occurring in the continuous audio stream [Fig. 3: 32, paragraph 0009: “based on the voice activity detection”, paragraph 0076, Fig. 4]; and an audio clips generator that is configured to generate audio clips based on the same continuous audio stream and said detection signals [paragraphs 0076, Fig. 3:32, paragraph 0077: “The system can segment the audio streams based on the detected voice activity data. It can further timestamp each audio segment by marking the beginning, end, and duration of each segment”].
As to claim 12, Bradley discloses wherein the audio signal processor is configured to generate a voice activity detection notification upon determining that speech has been detected in the continuous audio stream [paragraph 0077: detected voice activity data”].
As to claim 13, Bradley discloses generate a silence detection notification upon determining that silence has been detected in the continuous audio stream [paragraphs 77: implicit from “ The system can segment the audio streams based on the detected voice activity data. It can further timestamp each audio segment by marking the beginning, end, and duration of each segment” – some similar notification must be provided to mark the end of speech (i.e. when silence is detected)].
As to claim 14, Bradley discloses wherein the audio signal processor is further configured to generate a processed audio stream from the received continuous audio stream, the processed audio stream being enhanced in at least one fashion relative to the received continuous audio stream [Fig. 6, paragraphs 0077, 0088, 0090, 0106, 109, 0188].
As to claim 15, Bradley discloses wherein the audio signal processor analyzes the processed audio stream in order to generate the detection signals [Fig. 6, paragraphs 0077, 0088, 0090, 0106, 109, 0188].
As to claim 16, Bradley discloses wherein the audio clips generator is configured to generate audio clips based on the processed audio stream [Fig. 6, paragraphs 0077, 0088, 0090, 0106, 109, 0188].
As to claim 17, Bradley discloses wherein the audio signal processor generates the processed audio stream making use of one or more functional components selected from the group consisting of an Echo Canceller, a Noise Canceller [paragraphs 0077, 0188, 0192], an Automatic Gain Controller (AGC), a Voice Isolator, a Voice Diarizer [Fig. 6, paragraphs 0077, 0088, 0090, 0106, 109, 0188] and a Voice Spectral Improver [paragraphs 0090, 0104, 0181].
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220115020 to Bradley et al. (“Bradley”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11297368 to Guidetti (“Guidetti”).
As to claims 1 and 6, Bradley discloses a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing a set of instructions for generating audio clips from a continuous audio stream for processing in an Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) engine [Fig. 3], the method comprising: receiving a continuous audio stream [Fig. 3: 31: “receive audio streams”, paragraph 0076]; receiving a voice activity detection notification of the start of detected speech in the continuous audio stream [paragraph 0077: “the detected audio data”, paragraph 0099: “ A VAD function can identify likely beginning and endpoint timestamps of the speech segments”, Fig. 4-5]; ending the generation of the new audio clip when a notification of silence detected in the continuous audio stream is received [Fig. 4 segment “A” ends when VAD-A returns to 0 indicating silence; paragraph 0099: endpoint … of the speech segment”; and sending the generated audio clip for processing in the ASR engine [Fig. 3 “speech segments” are provided to “transcription”(33), paragraph 0078 “the system can proceed to transcribe 33 the speech segments into text strings with one or more speech recognition systems”].
Bradley does not expressly disclose beginning to generate a new audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream.
In the same or similar field of invention, Guidetti discloses beginning to generate a new audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream [Guidetti column 5 lines 31-39, column 7 lines 23-35: “The audio clip may include audio captured by the recording device on the circular buffer during a period before the request”, also see Figs. 2-3].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bradley to have features of beginning to generate a new audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream as taught by Guidetti. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow a spectator to capture the last n-seconds of a performer's live audio. In other words, the spectator can grab an audio bite of something that they just heard during the live event and allow the spectator to replay a portion of the live event [Guidetti column 1 lines 47-52].
As to claims 2 and 7, Guidetti discloses wherein a duration of the stored payload of the continuous stream is constant [ Guidetti column 5 lines 31-60, column 6 lines 65-66]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
As to claims 3 and 8, Guidetti discloses selectively adjusting a duration of the stored payload of the previously received portion of the continuous audio stream [Guidetti column 5 lines 31-60, also see claim 1: “wherein the audio clip is a segment of audio with a length of n-seconds, wherein n-seconds is less than a length of the live event1”]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claims 1 and 6.
As to claim 18, Bradley discloses an apparatus of claim 11 [see rejection of claim 11].
Bradley does not expressly disclose beginning to generate a new audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream.
In the same or similar field of invention, Guidetti discloses wherein the audio clips generator is configured to generate an audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream [Guidetti column 5 lines 31-39, column 7 lines 23-35: “The audio clip may include audio captured by the recording device on the circular buffer during a period before the request”, also see Figs. 2-3].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bradley to have features of wherein the audio clips generator is configured to generate an audio clip using at least a portion of a stored payload of a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream as taught by Guidetti. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow a spectator to capture the last n-seconds of a performer's live audio. In other words, the spectator can grab an audio bite of something that they just heard during the live event and allow the spectator to replay a portion of the live event [Guidetti column 1 lines 47-52].
As to claim 19, Bradley discloses wherein the audio clips generator comprises a buffer that stores a previously received portion of the continuous audio stream, and wherein the audio clips generator is configured to generate an audio clip using at least a portion of a payload the buffer and a currently received portion of the continuous audio stream [Guidetti column 5 lines 31-39, column 7 lines 23-35: “The audio clip may include audio captured by the recording device on the circular buffer during a period before the request”, also see Figs. 2-3]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 4-5, 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220115020 to Bradley et al. (“Bradley”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11297368 to Guidetti (“Guidetti”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20060136201 to Landron et al. (“Landron”).
As to claims 4 and 9, Bradley and Guidetti disclose the method of claim 1 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 6 [see rejection of claims 1 and 6].
Bradley and Guidetti do not expressly disclose wherein a duration of the stored payload of the previously received portion of the continuous stream is greater than a sum of: (1) a time for the voice activity detection notification to be transmitted over networks and to be received by an audio clips generator; and (2) an average time for an audio signal processor to detect voice activity in a continuous audio stream.
In the same or similar field of invention, Landron discloses wherein a duration of the stored payload of the previously received portion of the continuous stream is greater than a sum of: (1) a time for the voice activity detection notification to be transmitted over networks and to be received by an audio clips generator [paragraphs 0042-43; and (2) an average time for an audio signal processor to detect voice activity in a continuous audio stream [Landron paragraphs 0042-43]. As per Landron, the Audio Buffer (AB) 306 buffers the audio received from the NS 302. The length of time T that can be buffered can vary from zero (0) msec to I msec, The variable T will be set to cover the expected delay between the time that speech begins until the time a transmit channel in the transceiver 202 is open. The lower limit of zero (0) msec is an ideal condition in which there is zero network delay and zero (0) VAD 304 delay.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bradley and Guidetti to have features of wherein a duration of the stored payload of the previously received portion of the continuous stream is greater than a sum of: (1) a time for the voice activity detection notification to be transmitted over networks and to be received by an audio clips generator; and (2) an average time for an audio signal processor to detect voice activity in a continuous audio stream as taught by Landron. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a hands-free operation of the push-to-talk radio function [Landron paragraph 0001].
As to claims 5 and 10, Landron discloses wherein the average time for an audio signal processor to detect voice activity in a continuous audio stream comprises the average time that it takes for the audio signal processor to determine that a user has begun speaking after the continuous audio stream first begins to indicate user speaking activity [paragraph 0043]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claims 4 and 9.
As to claim 20, Bradley and Guidetti disclose the apparatus of claim 19 [see rejection of claim 19].
Bradley and Guidetti do not expressly disclose wherein a duration of the previously received portion of the continuous audio stream stored in the buffer is greater than a sum of: (1) a time for the detection signals to be communicated from the audio signal processor to the audio clips generator; and (2) an average time for the audio signal processor to determine that speech has been detected in the continuous audio stream.
In the same or similar field of invention, Landron discloses wherein a duration of the previously received portion of the continuous audio stream stored in the buffer is greater than a sum of: (1) a time for the detection signals to be communicated from the audio signal processor to the audio clips generator [paragraphs 0042-43; and (2) an average time for the audio signal processor to determine that speech has been detected in the continuous audio stream [Landron paragraphs 0042-43]. As per Landron, the Audio Buffer (AB) 306 buffers the audio received from the NS 302. The length of time T that can be buffered can vary from zero (0) msec to I msec, The variable T will be set to cover the expected delay between the time that speech begins until the time a transmit channel in the transceiver 202 is open. The lower limit of zero (0) msec is an ideal condition in which there is zero network delay and zero (0) VAD 304 delay.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bradley and Guidetti to have features of wherein a duration of the previously received portion of the continuous audio stream stored in the buffer is greater than a sum of: (1) a time for the detection signals to be communicated from the audio signal processor to the audio clips generator; and (2) an average time for the audio signal processor to determine that speech has been detected in the continuous audio stream as taught by Landron. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a hands-free operation of the push-to-talk radio function [Landron paragraph 0001].
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190355383 to Mortensen et al. (Figs. 1-3 and corresponding paragraphs).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100192033 to Zopf (Figs. 2-6 and corresponding paragraphs).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights