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 .
This Office Action is in response to the submission filed October 23, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are directed to methods, systems and computer readable mediums for detecting deep-fake generated voice and providing an alert if the voice is deep-fake. The recited claim limitations for receiving a voice audio sample of a calling party engaged in a communication session with a called party is a data gathering step that can be achieved by a person hearing the voice audio; Determining based on voice verification models, that the voice audio sample includes characteristics of a deepfake-generated voice can be achieved by the person listening to the audio and using known voice characteristics of real and computerized voices, determining the audio is fake; in response to the determining, alerting the called party about the deepfake-generated voice can be achieved by the person saying or using pen and paper that the caller is fake. The recited limitations are directed a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computing devices, systems, computer medium, and generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computing devices, systems, computer medium, and generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the generic computing devices, systems, computer medium, and generic computer components to perform the various steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed to generic computer elements for implementing phone calls, performing mathematical calculations on audio data, organizing and manipulating audio data, and/or performing steps for alerting, analyzing and ending calls
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 6-11, 12, 15-17 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khoury et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0321009), hereinafter Khoury.
Khoury discloses methods and apparatus for detecting spoofing conditions. Regarding claim 1, Khoury teaches a method [fig 3A] comprising: receiving, by one or more computing devices, a voice audio sample of a calling party engaged in a communication session with a called party [para 0036 – voice source received over audio channel (telephone line, wireless channel; internet channel; see also para 0045 – voice sample received in a phone call]; determining, by the one or more computing devices and based on voice verification models [para 0036-0037 – enrollment database…generated models for each authorized speaker..spoofed models; para 0048], that the voice audio sample includes characteristics of a deepfake-generated voice [para 0041 – binary classifier outputs indication of “genuine” or “spoofed”; para 0045-0050 – classifying voice sample as genuine or spoofed]; and in response to the determining, alerting, by the one or more computing devices, the called party about the deepfake-generated voice.
Regarding claim 6, Khoury teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the voice audio sample represents voice audio from an initial time period in the communication session [para 0048 – automated speaker verification system detecting genuine users attempting to access their account –where attempting to access and account occurs during an initial time period of a conversation].
Regarding claim 7, Khoury teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the voice verification models utilize biometric markers [para 0037 – speaker enrollment; para 0041-0047 – classification based on extracted speaker’s deep acoustic features from the received voice signal].
Regarding claim 8, Khoury teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the alerting comprises alerting based on the called party opting in for notifications [para 0065 – live operator joining a call provides a form of the account services opting in for notifications].
Regarding claim 9, Khoury teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the alerting includes at least one of vibrating a device of the called party, sending a message to the device of the called party, or causing a tone to be played at the device of the called party [para 0065 – live operator joining call provides a form of messaging to the called party].
Regarding claim 10, Khoury teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to the determining, terminating the communication session [para 0065 – terminating call].
Regarding claim 11, Khoury teaches the method of claim 1, wherein action(s) taken in response to the determining are configurable by the called party [para 0065 – live operator joining call provides a form of configuring an action that can be taken].
Claims 12, 15-17 and 18-20 are rejected under similar rationale as claims 1 and 6-11.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 2-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoury in view of Jackson et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0225745), hereinafter Jackson.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Khoury fails to specifically teach further comprising capturing voice audio by an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the calling party or the called party and providing the voice audio to sampling component(s) for encoding. In a similar field of endeavor, Jackson teaches a system for voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) networks, utilizing Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) for calling and called parties [elements 105 and 106], suitable protocols for transmitting frames, packets or other data formats (“encoding”) [para 0059] and provides for early media-indication of the calling party [para 0015-0016] to assist in providing caller identification information. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized the advantages of implementing the IMS/data transmission techniques suggested by Jackson, in the system of Khoury, and the results would have been predictable in providing early indication of the caller, thereby ensuring the called party is aware of fake or spoofing calls and reducing potentially harmful calls reaching called parties.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Khoury and Jackson teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising encoding, by the sampling component(s), the voice audio as the voice audio sample [Jackson’s suitable protocols for transmitting data – para 0059].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Khoury and Jackson teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising deleting the voice audio and the voice audio sample after use [where deleting data is an obvious step requiring only routine skill in the art so as to minimize storage space in the system].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Khoury and Jackson teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the voice audio is a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) stream forked by the IMS to the sampling component(s) [Jackson’s RTP communication session – para 0015-0016].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7598. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,TH,F 11:30-8:00.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
ANGELA A. ARMSTRONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/ANGELA A ARMSTRONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights