DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. This office action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 11/15/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 21-40 are currently pending and examined below, claims 1-20 having been previously cancelled by the Applicant.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 11/15/2024 have been accepted and considered by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Statement (IDS) filed on 11/15/2024 has been accepted and considered in this office action and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Priority
4. The Applicants priority to U.S. Patent Application # 17243216, filed April 28, 2021, has been accepted and considered in this office action.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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 Omum, 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 e-terminal disclaimer (e-TD) 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 non-statutory 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 an e-terminal disclaimer. An e-terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 of the instant Application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent # 11483427. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 11483427 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 11483427 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 11483427 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 21 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 11483427 both outline a method, comprising authenticating a recording of a call between two or more participants based on a match between first audio scores determined for the call and second audio scores determined for the recording, wherein the first audio scores are determined during the call and the second audio scores are determined after the call ends and outputting an indication of the authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
Claims 21-40 of the instant Application are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent # 12170741. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent # 12170741 and hence the claims of U.S. Patent # 12170741 can anticipate those of the present invention. That is, the claims of U.S. Patent # 12170741 contain every limitation of the claims of the present application or the claims of the present application are obvious variants thereof. It should be noted that this is in fact a non-provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
As an example; claim 21 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent # 12170741 both outline a method, comprising authenticating a recording of a call between two or more participants based on a match between first audio scores determined for the call and second audio scores determined for the recording, wherein the first audio scores are determined during the call and the second audio scores are determined after the call ends and outputting an indication of the authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to drop narrower limitations in order to have a patent with wider applicability and freedom to operate. Also, removal of the additional steps is obvious: In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): "Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before".
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 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.
6. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Gainsboro (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2014/0247926 A1). Gainsboro is of the record, having been disclosed in the prosecution of the parent Application # 17243216.
With regards to claim 21, Gainsboro teaches a method, comprising authenticating a recording of a call between two or more participants based on a match between first audio scores determined for the call and second audio scores determined for the recording, wherein the first audio scores are determined during the call and the second audio scores are determined after the call ends (Paragraphs 38-39 and figures 1-12, teach a suspicious call finder platform for enabling calls between prison inmates and outside parties. Para 45, teaches that the suspicious calling detection system adds to the calls suspicious score for each suspicious contributing event. Different types of events are given different weights, and the high interest class of the inmate caller may also change the weighting of an event and the total suspicious score);
and outputting an indication of the authentication (Para 45, further teaches that a user's work queue can be sorted by highest suspicious scoring calls, by case, or a number of other different factors).
With regards to claim 22, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising recording the call to generate the recording (Para 40, teaches that the present invention allows investigators to listen to phone call recordings using headphones or ear-buds where the calling party side of the line is played in one channel and the called-party side of the line is played in the other channel).
With regards to claim 23, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising determining the first audio scores based on one or more of background noise, annunciated voice content, or syllable counts for the call and determining the second audio scores based on one or more of background noise, annunciated voice content, or syllable counts for the recording (Para 45, teaches the use of calling patterns in event suspicious score and total suspicious score. These patterns could be prosodic as outlined in para 23 and also inter-prosodic or trans-prosodic as outlined in para 87).
With regards to claim 24, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising determining whether the first audio scores and the second audio scores match (Para 45, further teaches that highly Suspicious calls are automatically presented to users for investigation. If a user confirms the call as suspicious after reviewing it, the system uses the confirmed pattern to identify other historical and future similar patterns and provides an appropriate weighting to such call patterns).
With regards to claim 25, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising retrieving the first audio scores from a data store prior to authenticating the recording (Para 38, teaches that spoken names, voice model data from spoken names, and text-converted spoken names are saved in the call database of the institution recording the call. Phone numbers dialed, spoken names, voice model data from spoken names, and text-converted spoken names are saved in a centralized database outside of any particular institution as well, to provide the ability for one institution to access phone number/voice data/name pairings recorded by other institutions, to aid in investigations and the uncovering of criminal associations).
With regards to claim 26, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising determining the first audio scores at discrete time intervals during the call and determining the second audio scores at discrete time intervals during the recording (Paragraphs 21-35, teach the use of short time windows for spectrographic analysis to extract key features of different people's voices which is used for later determining of both in event suspicious score and total suspicious score. Para 89 and figure 1, also teach a Call Report Selection Area 101 that allows the user to select a span of time and a type of calls to display over that span of time).
With regards to claim 27, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising continuously determining the first audio scores during the call and continuously determining the second audio scores during the recording (Para 59, teaches that the system performs continuous periodic imposter monitoring, where the voice on the inmate side of the line is periodically checked against voice prints or voice models of persons who it is deemed could possibly get on the line in place of the inmate who placed the call).
With regards to claim 28, Gainsboro teaches the method of claim 21, comprising determining the first audio scores at specific times during the call and determining the second audio scores at specific times during the recording (Para 89 and figure 1, teach a Call Report Selection Area 101 that allows the user to select a span of time and a type of calls to display over that span of time for event suspicious score. Para 90 and figure 2, further teach how time-span menu 200 expands showing selectable options when time-span menu drop-down arrow 201 is clicked. Time-span menu contains selections "Yesterday and Today", "Today", "Last X days", "Since . . . ", "Past Week", and "Past Month” for total suspicious score).
With regards to claims 29-32, these are computer readable medium (CRM) claims for the corresponding method claims 21-28. These two sets of claims are related as method and CRM of using the same, with each claimed CRM element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 29-32 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 21-28.
With regards to claim 33, Gainsboro teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 29, wherein the indication of the authentication identifies the recording as a true representation of the call (Paragraphs 20-35, teach the use of speech recognition, speaker identification and speaker verification to test a given person's voice to see if it matches a previously stored voice print. The stored voice print may be thought of as a model which is repeatedly tested against over time using small samples of the voice under test, and the resulting test scores are averaged over time. This procedure is used to produce a likelihood score which is a quantification of a true representation).
With regards to claims 34-40, these are system claims for the corresponding method claims 21-28. These two sets of claims are related as method and system of using the same, with each claimed system element's function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claims 34-40 are similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claims 21-28.
Conclusion
7. The following prior art, made of record but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Muttik (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2017/0163620 A1), Huber (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0385623 A1). These references are also included in the PTO-892 form attached with this office action.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. If you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). In case you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEERAJ SHARMA whose contact information is given below. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Louis-Desir can be reached on 571-272-7799 (Direct Phone). The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NEERAJ SHARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
571-270-5487 (Direct Phone)
571-270-6487 (Direct Fax)
neeraj.sharma@uspto.gov (Direct Email)
Prosecution Insights