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
This office action is in response to application 18/778,301, which was filed 07/19/24 and is a continuation of application 17/539,182, now US Patent 12,086,564, which was a divisional of application 16/578,386, now US Patent 11,205,056. Claim 1 is pending in the application and has been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of US Patent 12,086,564.
Specifically, a comparison of claim 1 in the present application with claims 1 and 2 of US Patent 12,086,564 yields the following:
(Present application) (US Patent 12,086,564)
1. A system for transcribing natural language speech, the system comprising:
a data annotator tool implemented by a computer that performs:
receiving an audio clip comprising the natural language speech from a server;
morphing the audio clip to a morphed audio clip, wherein the audio clip is pitch shifted in a first direction, frequency shifted, and pitch shifted a second time in a second direction opposite to the first direction,
playing the morphed audio clip for a human being;
receiving a transcription input from the human being for the morphed audio clip; and
providing the transcription input to a memory.
1. A system for transcribing natural language speech, the system comprising: a computer implementing
a data annotator tool that performs:
receiving an audio clip comprising the natural language speech from a server;
morphing the audio clip to a morphed audio clip where the audio clip is pitch shifted, frequency shifted, and pitch shifted a second time;
playing the morphed audio clip for a human being; receiving a transcription input from the human being for the morphed audio clip; and
providing the transcription input to a memory...
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the morphing comprises: first pitch shifting the received audio clip; frequency shifting the pitch shifted speech clip; and pitch shifting the frequency shifted speech clip in a direction opposite to the first pitch shift.
As the table above demonstrates, although the language is not identical each limitation of claim 1 of the present application is found in claims 1 and 2 of US Patent 12,086,564, and therefore, the claim is anticipated. Specifically, the limitations in bold found in claim 1 of the instant application which are missing from claim 1 of US Patent 12,086,564 are found in claim 2 of US Patent 12,086,564 as shown above.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Othmer et al. (US 20040064317, already on Applicant’s 07/16/24 IDS) in view of Mousa (“Voice Conversation Using Pitch Shifting Algorithm by Time Stretching with PSOLA and Re-Sampling”. Journal of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 61, NO. 1, 2010, 57–61).
Consider claim 1, Othmer discloses a system for transcribing natural language speech (system for providing a transcription service, [0024], for a voicemail, i.e. natural language speech, [0045]), the system comprising:
a data annotator tool (transcription server 120, Fig 1, [0027], and workstation 162, Fig 1, [0078]) implemented by a computer (audio device may be a computer, [0028]) that performs:
receiving an audio clip comprising the natural language speech from a server (receiving and segmenting an audio file, [0049] from voice mail gateway 210, Fig 2, [0030]);
morphing the audio clip to a morphed audio clip where the audio clip is pitch shifted in a first direction, frequency shifted (voices are masked in such a way to make all speakers sound similar in frequency and pitch, by altering both the frequency and pitch, [0050]), and pitch shifted a second time (normalizing the already masked audio by adjusting the speech to the pitch preferred by the transcriber, [0060]);
playing the morphed audio clip for a human being (playback of the audio file for the transcriber, [0085]);
receiving a transcription input from the human being for the morphed audio clip (transcriber enters text while listening to the file playback, [0085]); and
providing the transcription input to a memory (transcriptions are stored in database 110, Fig. 1, [0026]).
Othmer does not specifically mention the audio clip is pitch shifted a second time in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Mousa discloses an audio clip is pitch shifted a second time in a second direction opposite to the first direction (the time stretching using PSOLA and resampling were applied to a female speech signal as shown in Fig. 4, i.e. “audio clip”, page 60, Simulation Results, which expands the sound by time stretch then resampling to create a higher pitch, then compresses and resamples to create a deeper pitch, i.e. shifting “a second time in a second direction opposite to the first direction”, Section 2.4, page 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Othmer by such that an audio clip is pitch shifted a second time in a second direction opposite to the first direction in order to achieve speech morphing by ensuring the source and target signals are sufficiently similar to become reasonably aligned and interpolated for achieving new signals, as suggested by Mousa (Section 2, page 58). Doing so would have had predictable applications in speaker security, as suggested by Mousa (Section 1, page 58). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of speech processing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5986198 Gibson discloses changing the timbre and pitch of audio signals using a pitch shifter and memory buffer
US 5749073 Slaney (already on Applicant’s 07/16/24 IDS) discloses morphing audio by changing pitch and formant frequencies
US 9984700 Cohen (already on Applicant’s 07/16/24 IDS) discloses voice morphing by decomposing the signal into source and filter without having to determine formant positions
US 6336092 Gibson discloses targeted vocal transformation using spectral characteristics
US 20080147413 Sobol-Shikler discloses speech affect editing systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 04/13/26
Prosecution Insights