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
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 04/16/2026. Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19 and 20 are pending. Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 have been presently cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-16, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHAJAN et al. (US 2022/0159047) in view of CUTLER et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0073993).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-6, MAHAJAN teaches a method for voice continuation over a network with audio quality degradation during a communication session between a first computing device and a second computing device, the method comprising:
capturing, by the second computing device, an initial user's voice audio during the communication session between the first computing device and the second computing device (fig.3, 6, steps 330, 430, 520; paragraphs 0085, 0090, 0100);
generating, by the second computing device during the communication session, one or more voice model parameters of the user's voice based on the initial user's voice audio captured during the communication session (fig.3, 6, steps 450,480,540; paragraphs 0092- 0094, 0097, 0097, 0104);
transmitting, by the second computing device during the communication session, the one or more voice model parameters to the first computing device (fig.6, steps 450,480,540; paragraphs 0092-0094, 0096, 0104);
generating, by the second computing device in real time during the communication session, text corresponding with a subsequent user's voice audio captured by the second computing device (fig.6, steps 450,480,540; paragraphs 0092-0094, 0096, 0104);
receiving, by the first computing device, in real time during the communication session, the subsequent user’s audio [i.e., voice audio] captured by a media generating client/server [i.e., second computing device] (fig.3, 6, steps 330, 430, 520; paragraphs 0085, 0090, 0100); and
the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio (fig.6, steps 522, 460; paragraphs 0093, 0095, 0100);
determining, by the first computing device, a quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio in real time during the communication session (fig.6; paragraphs 0092, 00963) (Note; MAHAJAN teaches that due to connectivity issues/problems, the correct missing terms are not received in a full/proper format at part of the encoded audio (see paragraph 0093). In order to find out the missing terms in the encoded audio the system of MAHAJAN must determine a quality of the encoded audio [i.e., subsequent user’s voice audio].); and
performing, by the first computing device, voice restitution to generate an audio converted from the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio in real time during the communication session based on the one or more codec(s) [i.e., voice model parameters] of the subsequent user’s voice in response to determining that the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio is degraded (fig.6; paragraphs 0093, 0095, 0096). and
However, MAHAJAN does not specifically teach generating a cloned user voice audio speaking the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio. CUTLER teaches generating a cloned user voice audio speaking the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio (paragraph 26). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MAHAJAN to incorporate the feature of generating a cloned user voice audio speaking the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio in MAHAJAN’s invention as taught by CUTLER. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to greatly reduce the model training time of the voice clone, so as to improve the efficiency of the voice clone as well as improving the experience feeling of the user without affecting the audio quality of the voice clone.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, MAHAJAN teaches receiving, by the second computing device, the subsequent user’s voice audio (fig.3, 6, steps 330, 430, 520; paragraphs 0085, 0090, 0100);
transforming, by the second computing device, the subsequent user’s voice audio into the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio using STT (fig.6, steps 522, 460; paragraphs 0092, 0093, 0095, 0100); and
transmitting, by the second computing device, the subsequent user’s voice audio and the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio to the first computing device (fig.6, steps 522, 524; paragraphs 0092, 0093, 0095, 0100).
However, MAHAJAN does not specifically teach transforming the subsequent user’s voice audio into the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio using automatic speech recognition. CUTLER teaches transforming the subsequent user’s voice audio into the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio using automatic speech recognition (paragraph 3 of page 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MAHAJAN to incorporate the feature of transforming the subsequent user’s voice audio into the text corresponding with the subsequent user’s voice audio using automatic speech recognition in MAHAJAN’s invention as taught by CUTLER. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to conveniently convert the subsequent user’s voice into text using automatic speech recognition.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, MAHAJAN teaches configuring, by the first computing device, a voice restitution system based on the one or more codecs [i.e., voice model parameters] (fig.6, steps 450, 480,540; paragraphs 0092-0094, 0097, 0097, 0104).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, MAHAJAN teaches playing the subsequent user’s voice audio on the first computing device in response to determining that the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio is not degraded (fig.6; paragraphs 0090, 0096).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, MAHAJAN teaches a system for voice continuation over a network with audio quality degradation, the system comprising:
a first computing device comprising at least one first processor and at least one first memory comprising a first plurality of instructions stored thereon (fig.1; paragraphs 0038-0039); and
a second computing device comprising at least one second processor and at least one second memory comprising a second plurality of instructions stored thereon (fig.1; paragraphs 0038-0039).
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHAJAN et al. (US 2022/0159047) in view of CUTLER et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0073993) further in view of Mahajan et al. (US 2025/0391421).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, MAHAJAN teaches determining a connectivity issues/problems of a network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device (paragraphs 0092, 00963).
However, MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER does not specifically teach determining a bandwidth of a network connection. Mahajan’421 teaches determining a bandwidth of a network connection (paragraphs 0008, 0030). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER to incorporate the feature of determining a bandwidth of a network connection in MAHAJAN’s invention in view of CUTLER’s invention as taught by Mahajan’421. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide proper diagnosis for the network connectivity issues such that a better quality can be achieved.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER does not specifically teach determining the bandwidth of the network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device is below a predefined threshold. Mahajan’421 teaches determining the bandwidth of the network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device is below a predefined threshold (fig.2; paragraphs 0012, 0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER to incorporate the feature determining the bandwidth of the network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device is below a predefined threshold in MAHAJAN’s invention in view of CUTLER’s invention as taught by Mahajan’421. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide properly determine the noise for the network connectivity issues such that a better quality can be achieved.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHAJAN et al. (US 2022/0159047) in view of CUTLER et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0073993) further in view of Obaidi (US 2022/0130372).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER does not specifically teach wherein determining the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio comprises determining a latency of a network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device. Obaidi teaches wherein determining the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio comprises determining a latency of a network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device (paragraphs 0024, 0053). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER to incorporate the feature of wherein determining the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio comprises determining a latency of a network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device in MAHAJAN’s invention in view of CUTLER’s invention as taught by Obaidi. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to indicate an acceptable delay for achieving a better quality.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER does not specifically teach wherein determining that the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio is degraded comprises determining the latency of the network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device is above a predefined threshold. Obaidi teaches wherein determining that the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio is degraded comprises determining the latency of the network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device is above a predefined threshold (paragraphs 0024, 0053). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify MAHAJAN in view of CUTLER to incorporate the feature of wherein determining that the quality of the subsequent user’s voice audio is degraded comprises determining the latency of the network connection between the first computing device and the second computing device is above a predefined threshold in MAHAJAN’s invention in view of CUTLER’s invention as taught by Obaidi. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to conveniently indicate that an added delay by changing the voice of the user will decrease the quality of the voice call below an acceptable level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights