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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/7/2022. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rodriguez et al (US Publication No.: 20140379332).
Claim 1, Rodriguez et al discloses
Calculating a speaker feature based on a spoken voice (Fig. 1, label 3), the speaker feature being a feature unique to a speaker of the spoken voice (Paragraph 21 discloses “extracting the features from the detected utterance locally …”. Paragraph 54 discloses “verbal utterances not coming from the (target) speaker but from a user carrying the local device are subtracted from the speech samples … before feature extraction …”. Such paragraphs indicate the features extracted are unique to the target speaker, speaker of the spoken voice.);
analyzing condition information indicating a recording situation of the spoken voice from the spoken voice (Paragraph 52 discloses “feature extraction results in feature vectors comprising parameters as, for example, the MEL frequency cepstral coefficients. Other features that might be transmitted are VAD labels, the SNR, and (energy) saturation values per frame. … transmit extracted features for a predetermined number of frames showing at least some predetermined quality (for example, in terms of the signal to noise ratio).”); and
Transmitting the speaker feature and the condition information to an information reception device (Fig. 1, label 3-5. Paragraph 52 discloses “Other features that might be transmitted are VAD labels, the SNR, and (energy) saturation values per frame.), as information to be used by the information reception device to recognize the speaker of the spoken voice (Fig. 1, label 6).
Claim 2, Rodriguez et al discloses the recording situation corresponds to a condition to be used in calculating the speaker feature (Paragraph 52 discloses “transmit extracted features for a predetermined number of frames showing at least some predetermined quality (for example, in terms of the signal to noise ratio)”. Such indicates the signal to noise ratio or recording situation corresponding to a condition, wherein the signal to noise ratio is used to determine or calculate the extracted features.).
Claim 4, Rodriguez et al discloses the recording situation indicates at least one of a noise level at a time of recording the spoken voice, a microphone used to record the spoken voice, or a data attribute of the spoken voice (Paragraph 52 discloses a signal to noise ratio (noise level) of the audio frames indicating a noise level at a time of recording the spoken voice.).
Claim 12, Rodriguez et al discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium having a program stored thereon for causing a computer to execute the information transmission method according to claim 1. (See claim 1. Col. 2, lines 26-45 discloses non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon and executed by a system comprising a processor and memory.)
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al (US Publication No.: 20140379332) in view of Itakura et al (US Publication No.: 20200160846).
Claim 3, Rodriguez et al discloses an acoustic feature of the spoken voice is calculated (Paragraph 52 discloses “Further features comprise intermediate recognition results obtained by some processing of acoustic feature vectors.”), but fails to discloses the speaker feature is calculated from the acoustic feature using a deep neural network (DNN).
Itakura et al discloses speaker recognition comprising an acoustic feature calculating the acoustic feature of the voice of the utterance (Fig. 1, label 12) and a speaker feature extractor extracting speaker feature of the speaker of the utterance data from calculated utterance data statistic determined from the acoustic feature (Fig. 1, label 13,14) using a deep neural network (Abstract, paragraph 41). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Rodriguez et al by incorporating speaker feature calculation from acoustic feature as disclosed by Itakura et al so to improve the accuracy of speaker recognition.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al (US Publication No.: 20140379332) in view of Itakura et al (US Publication No.: 20200160846), further in view of deCharms (US Publication No.: 20160192166).
Claim 11, Rodriguez et al discloses
A speaker feature calculator (Fig. 1, label 3. Paragraph 5,15 discloses local device. This indicates the local device as a speaker feature calculator.) configured to calculate a speaker feature which is a feature unique to a speaker of the spoken voice (Paragraph 21 discloses “extracting the features from the detected utterance locally …”. Paragraph 54 discloses “verbal utterances not coming from the (target) speaker but from a user carrying the local device are subtracted from the speech samples … before feature extraction …”. Such paragraphs indicate the features extracted are unique to the target speaker, speaker of the spoken voice.);
An analyzer (Fig. 1, label 3,4, Paragraphs 5,12 discloses a local device performing the actions shown in Fig. 1. This indicates the local device as an analyzer.) configured to analyze condition information indicating a recording situation of the spoken voice (Paragraph 52 discloses “feature extraction results in feature vectors comprising parameters as, for example, the MEL frequency cepstral coefficients. Other features that might be transmitted are VAD labels, the SNR, and (energy) saturation values per frame. … transmit extracted features for a predetermined number of frames showing at least some predetermined quality (for example, in terms of the signal to noise ratio).”); and
An information transmitter (Fig. 1, label 5. Paragraphs 5,12 discloses a local device transmits to a server, indicating the local device as a transmitter.) configured to transmit the speaker feature and the condition information to an information reception device (Fig. 1, label 3-5. Paragraph 52 discloses “Other features that might be transmitted are VAD labels, the SNR, and (energy) saturation values per frame.) as information to be used by the information reception device to recognize the speaker of the spoken voice (Fig. 1, label 6).
Although Rodriguez et al discloses a local device as the speaker feature calculator, Itakura et al discloses a speaker feature calculator (Fig. 1, label 12) as a component. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the local device of Rodriguez et al by incorporating a speaker feature to calculate speaker features as disclosed by Itakura et al, wherein more than 1 apparatus or components can be used to perform the functionalities as disclosed by Rodriguez et al so to improve speaker recognition.
Although Rodriguez et al discloses a local device as the information transmitter, deCharms discloses a mobile device comprising a transmitter (Fig. 2, label 224). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the local device of Rodriguez et al by incorporating a transmitter in a mobile or local device as disclosed by deCharms, wherein more than 1 apparatus or components can be used to perform the functionalities as disclosed by Rodriguez et al so to improve speaker recognition.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,3,11,12,13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10,1,11,12 of U.S. Patent No. 12175984. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited claimed language of this application is broader than the patent, hence anticipates the claimed invention of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10,13 are allowed over prior art.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6044. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/LINDA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights