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 .
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 38, 40, 41, 43, 46, 49, 54 and 57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 11-15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,340,808. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
App 19/202,227
USPN 12/340,808
38 and 57. A system for synthesizing speech from minute facial skin movements, the system comprising: a housing; at least one sensor connected to the housing in a manner such that when the housing is worn, the at least one sensor is held at a distance from a skin surface; and at least one processor configured to: control at least one light source to project a plurality of light spots on a region of a face; receive from the at least one sensor, reflection signals indicative of light reflected from at least a subset of the plurality of light spots projected on the region of the face; analyze the reflection signals to determine minute facial skin movements indicative of silent speech; based on the determined minute facial skin movements indicative of the silent speech, extract words corresponding to the silent speech; and synthesize the words corresponding to the silent speech into audio signals.
1 and 20. A system for determining intended speech based on minute facial skin movements, the system comprising: a housing; at least one sensor connected to the housing in a manner such that when the housing is worn, the at least one sensor is held at a distance from a skin surface; at least one processor configured to: control at least one coherent light source to project a plurality of light spots on a region of a face; receive from the at least one sensor, reflection signals indicative of coherent light reflected from at least a subset of the plurality of light spots projected on the region of the face; analyze the reflection signals to determine minute facial skin movements indicative of the intended speech; based on the determined minute facial skin movements indicative of the intended speech, extract words corresponding to the intended speech; and initiate, prior to an audible utterance of the intended speech, an action based on the extracted words.
40. The system of claim 38, further comprising an earphone and wherein the at least one processor is further configured output the audio signals for presentation via the earphone.
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the housing is configured for engagement with an ear of a user.
41. The system of claim 38, further comprising a communication interface configured to transmit the audio signals to a mobile communications device via a communication link.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is included in the wearable housing and is configured to transmit data associated with the intended speech to a mobile communications device via a communication link.
43. The system of claim 38, wherein synthesizing the words includes translating the words to a language other than a language of the silent speech.
8. The system of claim 5, wherein translating includes generating a translated utterance in a synthesized voice and in a language other than a language of the extracted words.
46. The system of claim 38, wherein extracting the words corresponding to the silent speech includes determining multiple candidate phonemes from the minute facial skin movements based on respective probabilities that the minute facial skin movements are associated with the multiple candidate phonemes.
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the action includes extracting multiple candidate phonemes together with respective probabilities, and synthesizing audible speech responsively to the extracted phonemes.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein synthesizing the audible speech includes mixing the multiple candidate phonemes based on their respective probabilities.
49. The system of claim 38, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the silent speech in an absence of vocalization of the words.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the initiated action in an absence of vocalization of the extracted words or utterance of any other sounds.
54. The system of claim 38, wherein extracting the words corresponding to the silent speech involves determining conversation context.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein translating the extracted words involves determining conversation context of the intended speech.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (PGPUB 2018/0107275), hereinafter referenced as Chen in view of Rice et al. (PGPUB 2019/0086316), hereinafter referenced as Rice and in further view of Kapur et al. (PGPUB 2019/0074012), hereinafter referenced as Kapur.
Regarding claim 57, Chen discloses a method for synthesizing speech from minute facial skin movements, the method comprising:
receiving from at least one sensor, reflection signals indicative of coherent light reflected from the face (coherent light source; p. 0019-0021), but does not specifically teach analyzing the reflection signals to determine minute facial skin movements indicative of the intended speech, based on the determined minute facial skin movements indicative of the intended speech, extracting words corresponding to the silent speech and synthesizing the words corresponding to the silent speech into audio signals.
Rice discloses a system comprising:
controlling at least one coherent source to project a plurality of light spots on a region of a face (speckle pattern to focused light scattering particles on skin; p. 0012, 0017, 0033, 0039, 0047-0048), to improve performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to provide a variety of ways to detect subtle movement.
Kapur discloses a system comprising:
analyzing signals to determine minute facial skin movements (little movement) indicative of the intended speech (speech articulator muscle; abstract with p. 0015, 0045, 0080, 0085, 0184-0186);
based on the determined minute facial skin movements indicative of the intended speech extracting words to the silent speech (extract words; p. 0015, 0045-0046, 0080, 0085, 0184-0186); and
synthesizing the words corresponding to the silent speech into audio signals (TTS; p. 0129), to assist with articulation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist with training a device to recognize data in a variety of different manners.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights