DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 August 2024 and 22 August 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisitor” and “converter” in claims 1-3 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “ACVAE-VC: non-Parallel Voice Conversion with Auxiliary Classifier Variational Autoencoder”, hereinafter referred to as Kameoka et al., in view of WO 2021234967, hereinafter referred to as Kanagawa.
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Kameoka et al. discloses a signal analysis system comprising:
an acquisitor mel-cepstrum in a machine learning scheme of acoustic conversion based on a classifier variational autoencoder (Kameoka et al. describes an ACVAE trained using a mel-cepstrum coefficient. See Kameoka et al., Highlight 1.).
Kameoka et al., though, does not disclose a converter that converts a sequence of a second mel-spectrogram of an input acoustic signal into a sequence of a third mel-spectrogram of a target acoustic signal using the conversion network.
Kanagawa is cited to disclose a converter that converts a sequence of a second mel-spectrogram of an input acoustic signal into a sequence of a third mel-spectrogram of a target acoustic signal using the conversion network (Kanagawa indicates that a mel-spectrogram may be used instead of a mel-cepstrum as an acoustic feature value for audio waveform generation model training. See Kanagawa, Highlight 1.). Kanagawa indicates that a mel-spectrogram may be used instead of a mel-cepstrum as an acoustic feature value for audio waveform generation model training. Thus, a person skilled in the art could have easily applied the feature disclosed in Kanagawa to the invention described in Kameoka et al. such that a mel-spectrogram is used instead of a mel-cepstrum to perform training.
As to claim 4, claim 4 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), Kameoka et al., as modified by Kanagawa, discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium which stores a program causing a computer to function as the signal analysis system according to claim 1 (Kanagawa, Highlight 2.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “ACVAE-VC: non-Parallel Voice Conversion with Auxiliary Classifier Variational Autoencoder”, hereinafter referred to as Kameoka et al., in view of WO 2021234967, hereinafter referred to as Kanagawa, and further in view of “MASKCYCLEGAN-VC: Learning Non-Parallel Voice Conversion with Filling in Frames”, hereinafter referred to as Kaneko et al.
Regarding claim 2 (original), Kameoka et al., as modified by Kanagawa, discloses the signal analysis system according to claim 1, but not wherein the classifier variational autoencoder performs learning of the conversion network using a task of complementing a missing frame in the sequence of the first mel-spectrogram. Kaneko et al. is cited to disclose wherein the classifier variational autoencoder performs learning of the conversion network using a task of complementing a missing frame in the sequence of the first mel-spectrogram (Kaneko et al. discloses an audio conversion device that complements a lost frame by FIF. See Kaneko et al., Fig. 1 and Highlight 1.). Kaneko et al. discloses an audio conversion device that complements a lost frame by FIF. Thus, a person skilled in the art could have easily applied the feature described in Kaneko et al. to the invention described in Kameoka et al. such that a lost frame is complemented by FIF.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “ACVAE-VC: non-Parallel Voice Conversion with Auxiliary Classifier Variational Autoencoder”, hereinafter referred to as Kameoka et al., in view of WO 2021234967, hereinafter referred to as Kanagawa, and further in view of KR 102176302, hereinafter referred to as Jonguk et al.
Regarding claim 3 (currently amended), Kameoka et al., as modified by Kanagawa, discloses the signal analysis system according to claim 1 autoencoder performs learning of the conversion network using a sequence of the first mel-spectrogram of the acoustic signal on which a noise signal is superimposed. Jonguk et al. is cited to disclose wherein the classifier variational autoencoder performs learning of the conversion network using a sequence of the first mel-spectrogram of the acoustic signal on which a noise signal is superimposed (Jonguk et al. discloses a VAE that performs learning using a signal including noise. Jonguk et al., Highlight 1.). Jonguk et al. discloses a VAE that performs learning using a signal including noise. Thus, a person skilled in the art could have easily applied the feature disclosed in Jonguk et al. to the invention described in Kameoka et al. such that training is performed using a signal including noise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. In particular, the examiner notes WO-2020036178, WO-2019240228, and WO-2019163849 as disclosing prior art similar to that of “ACVAE-VC: non-Parallel Voice Conversion with Auxiliary Classifier Variational Autoencoder”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Bhavesh M Mehta can be reached on 5712727453. 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.
/ANNE L THOMAS-HOMESCU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656