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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-21 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541). Claim 1 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above, while paragraph [0033] of Chen et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) and Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent 10,623,403). The combination of claim 1 of the patent and Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above, while Gupta et al. (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38) teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) and Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent 10,623,403). The combination of claim 1 of the patent and Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above, while Gupta et al. (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38) teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541). Claim 1 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above, while paragraph [0033] of Chen et al. teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Randall (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0067822). Claim 1 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above, while Paragraphs [0035-0037], [0045] & [0047] of Randall teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Lopez Espejo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0125619). Claim 7 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above, while Figure 3 and Paragraphs [0050-0051] of Lopez Espejo teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541). Claim 1 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above, while paragraph [0033] of Chen et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) and Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent 10,623,403). The combination of claim 13 of the patent and Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, while Gupta et al. (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38) teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) and Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent 10,623,403). The combination of claim 13 of the patent and Chen et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, while Gupta et al. (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38) teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim in the patent in narrower and could be used to reject the current claim.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent 10,623,403). Claim 19 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 above, while Gupta et al. (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38) teaches the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,183,350 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541). Claim 19 of the patent teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 above, while paragraph [0033] of Chen et al. teaches the limitations of claim 21.
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541).
As per claims 2, 15 and 19, Chen et al. discloses:
A system (Paragraphs [0012], [0073] & [0107]), comprising:
a processor configured to execute computer-executable instructions stored in a computer- readable memory (Paragraphs [0012], [0073] & [0107]), which causes the system to:
determine one or more attributes of voice information associated with a user account (Figure 4, item 408 and paragraph [0078] – embeddings are generated);
determine a first voice resemblance score based on a first comparison of the one or more attributes of the voice information and one or more attributes of a voice print associated with the user account (Figure 4, item 410 and paragraph [0079]); and
in response to the first voice resemblance score being above a first threshold voice resemblance score (Figure 4, item 410 and paragraph [0079] – voice match threshold), determine a second voice resemblance score based on a second comparison of the one or more attributes of the voice information and one or more attributes of a set of previously stored voice prints associated with the user account, wherein the set of previously stored voice prints is different from the voice print (Figure 4, item 412 and paragraph [0079] – these can be done sequentially with the spoof detection done after the voice match).
Claim 15 is directed to the method of using the system of claim 2, so is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 19 is directed to a computer readable medium containing instructions to cause a processor to act as the system of claim 2, so is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claims 3 and 16, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 2 and 15 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
receiving the voice data via a virtual assistant device (Paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 6, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
determine whether the second voice resemblance score is higher than a second threshold voice resemblance score (Figure 4, item 412 and paragraph [0079] – spoof detection threshold).
As per claim 7, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
in response to the second voice resemblance score being higher than the second threshold voice resemblance score, determine that the voice information is not valid; and in response to the voice information not being valid, tag the voice information as not valid (Paragraphs [0079] & [0092-0093] – the voice information is judged to be either spoofed (not valid) or genuine and is labeled as such).
As per claim 8, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
the tag of the voice information as not valid comprises at least one of a first tag indicative that the voice information is a replay of a recording of a voice or a second tag indicative that the voice information is an artificially generated voice (Paragraphs [0007] & [0025] – the spoofing detected is that of an artificially created voice).
As per claims 10 and 21, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 2 and 19 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
receive the voice information via a conversational gateway comprising at least one of a conversational or audio interface (Paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 12, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
in response to the second voice resemblance score not being higher than a defined second threshold voice resemblance score, determine that the voice information is verified; and in response the voice information being verified, authenticate the user (Paragraphs [0079] & [0092-0093] – the voice information is judged to be either spoofed (not valid) or genuine and is labeled as such).
As per claim 14, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Chen et al. further discloses:
perform an artificial intelligence analysis on at least one of the voice information, the set of previously stored voice prints, or a set of previously stored voice information that corresponds to the set of previously stored voice prints; wherein the artificial intelligence analysis determines whether an unidentified user associated with the voice information is to be authenticated based on the voice information; and wherein the artificial intelligence analysis is performed utilizing at least one voice recognition technique relating to at least one of frequency estimation, a hidden Markov model, a Gaussian mixture model, a pattern matching algorithm, a neural network, a matrix representation, a vector quantization, a decision tree, or a cosine similarity technique (Figure 6 and Paragraphs [0007], [0012], [0028-0029] ).
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 4-5, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent 10,623,403).
As per claims 4 and 17, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 3 and 16 above. Chen et al. fails to disclose but Gupta et al in the same field of endeavor discloses:
solicit a phrase or verbal response from a user of the virtual assistant device, or repeat the phrase or verbal response (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. with the conversational virtual assistant methods of Gupta et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As per claims 5 and 18, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claims 3 and 16 above. Chen et al. fails to disclose but Gupta et al in the same field of endeavor discloses:
output an automatically generated voice to speak with a user of the virtual assistant device (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. with the conversational virtual assistant methods of Gupta et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As per claim 20, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 19 above. Chen et al. fails to disclose but Gupta et al in the same field of endeavor discloses:
receive the voice data via a virtual assistant device, wherein the voice data is generated based on a phrase or verbal response spoken by a user to the virtual assistant device (Column 5, lines 19-25 & Column 20, lines 26-38).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. with the conversational virtual assistant methods of Gupta et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) in view of Tuchman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0047232).
As per claim 9, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Chen et al. in the combination further discloses:
in response to determining that the second voice resemblance score is higher than the second threshold voice resemblance score, determining that the voice information potentially is not valid (Paragraphs [0079] & [0092-0093] – the voice information is judged to be either spoofed (not valid) or genuine and is labeled as such);
The combination fails to disclose but Tuchman et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches:
in response to determining that the voice information potentially is not valid, presenting an authentication challenge to an unidentified user that presented the voice information, wherein the unidentified user is the user associated with the user account or a fraudulent user (Figure 4 and paragraphs [0050] & [0051]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. with the back up authentication methods of Tuchman et al. because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) in view of Randall (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0067822).
As per claim 11, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Chen et al. fails to disclose but Randall in the same field of endeavor teaches:
the set of previously stored voice prints relate to one or more prior interactions between the system and a user associated with the user account, wherein at least one of the one or more interactions comprises at least one of a previous authentication attempt associated with the user account or a previous customer service related interaction associated with the user account (Paragraphs [0035-0037], [0045] & [0047] – the voice print is iteratively updated from customer service interactions).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. with the customer service voice print repositories of Randall because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233541) in view of Lopez Espejo (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0125619).
As per claim 13, Chen et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Chen et al. fails to disclose but Lopez Espejo in the same field of endeavor teaches:
the voice print is a first voice print, and wherein the instructions further cause the system to: in response to authentication of the user, determine a second voice print based on the voice information, wherein the second voice print comprises the one or more attributes of the voice information; and update the set of previously stored voice prints to comprise the second voice print (Figure 3 and Paragraphs [0050-0051]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chen et al. with the update methods of Lopez Espejo because it is a case of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully considers the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant and require written authorization. Should the Applicant wish to communicate via e-mail, including the following paragraph in their response will allow the Examiner to do so:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Should e-mail communication be desired, the Examiner can be reached at Edwin.Leland@USPTO.gov
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN S LELAND III whose telephone number is (571)270-5678. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/EDWIN S LELAND III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights