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 .
Drawings
The drawings were submitted on 03/26/2025. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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 33-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite mathematical concepts. For example, in independent claims 33 and 42: “obtaining information about an amount of energy present…” and “determining whether the audio signal may result from a replay attach based on said on said information about the amount of energy present” (see also claims 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, etc.).
The claims recite mental processes, namely, observations/evaluations and decisions that could be performed conceptually in the human mind, including “identifying at least one part of the audio signal in which the speech consists of fricatives.”
The claims recite mathematical relationships and calculations such as “calculating a first ratio…”, “calculating a second ratio…”, and “calculating a ratio…”
Lastly, the claims recite pre-solutional activity such as “receiving an audio signal representing speech.”
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims are computer-implemented and include steps like “receiving an audio signal representing speech”, “identifying… fricatives”, “obtaining information…” These are generic computer functions involving data gathering, processing (mathematical), decision-making, and input/output. Merely applying an abstract idea on a generic computer or using conventional speech recognition does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the processors or to another technology/technical field. The use of a loudspeaker (see claims 39-42) is invoked as a tool to output audio and is merely post-solutional activity. There is no recitation of a specific, technological improvement.
Constraints like “ultrasonic frequencies” and “determining whether the audio signal may result from a replay attack” are field-of-use and post-solution activity that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Beyond the abstract ideas, the claims recite generic computer implementation: receiving audio, identifying fricatives, obtaining information, and determining whether audio resulted from a replay attack. The specification, as reflected by the claim language, does not require any unconventional hardware or a particular machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-52 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and Double Patenting set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 33 and 42, the closest prior art discovered by the Examiner is Krishnaswamy et al. (US 20180146370 A1), which teaches:
“A method of detecting a replay attack” (par. 0058; ‘However, there are possibilities of spoofing attack in voice recognition system, which break the voice biometric security system.’), the method comprising:
“receiving an audio signal representing speech” (par. 0064; ‘Actual voice input or speech may be input to pre-processing module 202 by 1 to N speakers, and may be processed by module 202 using noise cancellation and format conversion to process further.’);
“identifying at least one part of the audio signal in which the speech consists of fricatives” (par. 0069; ‘But for weak fricative it is not possible to find the start and end point by simply finding the energy only.’).
However, the Examiner deems the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, inter alia, ““obtaining information about an amount of energy present at ultrasonic frequencies during said at least one part of the audio signal” together with “determining whether the audio signal may result from a replay attack based on said information about the amount of energy present at ultrasonic frequencies” in combination with the other claim features.
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 33-52 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US Patent 12,288,533. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the omission of an element, e.g. “retrieving information about an expected frequency spectrum of the audio signal, wherein the retrieving comprises identifying locations in the expected frequency spectrum at which at least one specific acoustic class is expected to appear, the at least one specific acoustic class comprising one or more specific phonemes”, “comparing said locations in the frequency spectrum of portions of the audio signal for which speech content is identified with said locations in the respective expected frequency spectrum”, etc. (see claim 1 of US Patent) and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK VILLENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3191. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6pm EST Monday through Friday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
MARK . VILLENA
Examiner
Art Unit 2658
/MARK VILLENA/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights