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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The filed information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims Objection
The following claims are objected for the following reasons:
Claim 9 relates to a system claim (central voice model server), which depends on independent method claim 1.
Claim 10 relates to a computer readable medium claim, which depends on independent method claim 1.
An independent claim is a standalone claim that contains all the limitations necessary to define an invention. It should not refer to another claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "The non-transitory computer readable medium". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 2021/0142782) in view of Minow (US 20220122593).
As per claim 1, Wolf teaches a method for operating a central voice model server for a voice-controlled terminal, the method comprising:
by a voice-controlled terminal, capturing a voice command of a user of the voice-controlled terminal and transmitting a primary audio file comprising the captured voice command to a central voice model server associated with the voice-controlled terminal ([0042]- [0043], receiving audio samples from a user);
by a voice control of the voice-controlled terminal, recognizing the voice command in the provided primary audio file using a voice model received from the central voice model server and causing a reaction of the terminal corresponding to the recognized voice command ([0024], wherein said, the system can include an encoder-decoder architecture to generate the voice model. The encoder portion can be trained to obtain automatic speech recognition (ASR) features and [0064], wherein said, the voice model 140 can include automatic speech recognition features to identify and process audio samples 108 (e.g., human voice) to identify the corresponding person and/or generate an audio output 142 that resembles the voice of the respective person);
storing, by the central voice model server, the transmitted primary audio file in a buffer memory of the central voice model server ([0036], wherein a look up table within a storage device of the central voice model stores audio files of a plurality of speaker embeddings from each user that provides audio samples to the device);
synthetically generating, by a synthesis module of the central voice model server, respective secondary audio files from randomly designated groups of primary audio files stored in the buffer memory and transmitted by the voice-controlled terminal ([0036], the lookup table can include an initial set of speaker embeddings that include artificially generated audio samples and/or audio samples from a plurality of users and can be used to initially generate a new voice model for a new user or user that does not have a voice model. See [0042] for generating a voice model);
training, by a training module of the central voice model server, the voice model exclusively with the generated secondary audio files ([0005]- [007], [0056], [0070] training, by the decoder, the voice model for the user using the one or more speaker embeddings and one or more subsequent audio samples from the use).
Wolf may not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the central voice model server, the trained voice model to the voice-controlled terminal. However, Wolf teaches that the used the used computing system does not imply a particular physical arrangement of component parts. For instance, different blocks can be located in different locations ([0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed for the system of Wolf to transmit the trained voice model to the voice-controlled terminal, as claimed.
Wolf may not explicitly disclose capturing a voice command. Minow in the same field of endeavor teaches capturing a voice command (Abstract, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use the voice capturing feature of Minow with the system of Wolf, in order to improve productivity and convenience by enabling hands-free operation, accelerating input speed, as most people speak faster than they type, and create highly accessible experiences for users with visual or physical impairments.
As per claim 2, Wolf teaches wherein the central voice model server designates at least three stored primary audio files as a group ([0024], [0039], a plurality of voice models with different characteristics or properties corresponding to different users are identified).
As per claim 3, Wolf teaches wherein a categorizing module of the central voice model server assigns to each stored primary audio file a plurality of values that are assigned to respective predetermined categories and designates the group dependent on the assigned values ([0035], wherein a plurality of values corresponding to properties or characteristics (within the audio files) such as, and not limited to, temporal aspects, rhythm, pitch, tone, and/or a speed or rate of speech are generated).
As per claim 4, Wolf teaches wherein the predetermined categories comprise a gender of a user, a dialect of a user, an age of a user, a voice pitch of a user, a speaking speed of a user, a speaking rhythm of a user, a speaking dynamics of a user and/or a speaking melody of a user ([0035], temporal aspects, rhythm, pitch, tone, and/or a speed or rate of speech).
As per claim 5, Wolf may not explicitly disclose wherein the primary audio files of a group are designated such that a match value determined as a function of the assigned values is greater than or equal to a predetermined match threshold value and/or pairwise differences of values assigned to the same category are less than a predetermined deviation threshold value. However, using a threshold to designate an audio file is well known in the art. Wolf teaches using threshold values for accepting audio data, as evidenced by paragraph [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use a threshold to designate an audio file, as claimed. This would save time and storage and provide more accurate results.
As per claim 6, Wolf may not explicitly disclose wherein the identified match value is increased by replacing a primary audio file of the group with largest pairwise differences to further primary audio files of the group by a randomly determined primary audio file different from each primary audio file of the group. However, substituting a shorter source audio file with a longer, high-quality audio file provides a richer acoustic footprint is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to replace a primary audio file of the group with largest pairwise differences to further primary audio files of the group by a randomly determined primary audio file different from each primary audio file of the group, as claimed. This would yield significantly better style embeddings, captures natural prosody, and enables more accurate voice replication.
As per claim 7, Wolf teaches wherein the central speech model server stores the primary audio file transmitted by the terminal temporarily and/or subject to a consent by the user in the buffer memory and/or each secondary audio file permanently in a training memory of the speech model server ([0023], a user can opt-in, authorize or request to record acoustic data or voice samples that are used to train or generate a model of the users voice…. the user can recite an initial test sentence to verify the quality of the speech).
As per claim 8, Wolf teaches wherein a voice assistant or a mobile terminal as the voice-controlled terminal captures the voice command (Wolf, [0043], the device 102 can include, but not limited to, a handheld device, computing device or mobile device of the user).
As per claim 9, system claim 9 and method claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly claim 9 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As per claim 10, Wolf teaches a computer readable medium ([0010]). The remaining steps are rejected under the same rationale as applied to the method steps of rejected claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELALI SERROU whose telephone number is (571)272-7638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 Am - 5 PM.
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-Louis 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.
/ABDELALI SERROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights