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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/417,756. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 14, Jha discloses a speech processing system, method and medium, hereinafter referenced as a system comprising memory having instructions stored thereon and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: apply one or more machine learning models to first input audio data to generate accent features associated with a first accent of a first user; analyze second input audio data associated with a second accent of a second user to generate vocal characteristics that are distinct to the second user and comprise a voice quality or one or more phonetic patterns, prosodic features, articulation styles, or intonation patterns; modify the second input audio data based on the vocal characteristics and the accent features; and generate output audio data based on the modified second audio data and output the output audio data (claims 1, 7 and 14).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Jha discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to extract from the first input audio data one or more other prosodic features, linguistic features, or global speaker characteristics (claims 2, 9 and 16).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Jha discloses a system wherein the accent features comprise one or more pitch contours, other intonation patterns, or phoneme pronunciations and the pitch contours comprise variations in pitch throughout the first input speech, the other intonation patterns comprise the rise and fall of pitch at the ends of phrases or sentences, or the phoneme pronunciations comprise a unique production of phonemes in the first accent (claim 3, 10 and 17).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18 Jha discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to apply a mel frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) analysis to extract a unique fingerprint of a voice of the second user, wherein the vocal characteristics comprise the unique fingerprint (claims 4, 11 and 18).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Jha discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to apply a speaker identity encoding technique to encode speaker-specific voice characteristics, wherein the vocal characteristics comprise the speaker-specific voice characteristics (claims 5, 12 and 19).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Jha discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to receive the second input audio data via one or more communication networks and from a user computing device that is remote from the speech processing system and the second input audio data is captured at the user computing device (claims 6, 13 and 20).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Jha discloses a system wherein the modified second input audio data preserves aspects of a natural voice of the second user and mimics the first accent (claims 8 and 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feinauer et al. (PGPUB 2020/0193971), hereinafter referenced as Feinauer.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 14, Fainauer discloses a speech processing system, method and medium, hereinafter referenced as a system comprising memory (figure 1, element 122) having instructions stored thereon and one or more processors (figure 1, element 103) coupled to the memory (figure 1, element 122) and configured to execute the instructions to:
apply one or more machine learning models (trained machine learning models; p. 0062) to first input audio data to generate accent features (vocal feature of a range of accents; p. 0065, 0080) associated with a first accent of a first user (first participant; fig. 2A, element 200 with p. 0041-0046);
analyze second input audio data associated with a second accent of a second user to generate vocal characteristics that are distinct to the second user and comprise a voice quality or one or more phonetic patterns, prosodic features (prosody; p. 0095-0100), articulation styles, or intonation patterns (second participant; fig. 2B, element 240 with p. 0041-0046, 0074);
modify the second input audio data based on the vocal characteristics and the accent features (duplicating accent/optimal accent; p. 0005-0007, 0054); and
generate output audio data based on the modified second audio data and output the output audio data (accent and dialect modifier modifies the voice of the user into an accent or dialect desired or target for the participant; p. 0007, 0046).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Feinauer discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to extract from the input audio data one or more prosodic features (prosodic features; p. 0095-0100), linguistic features, or global speaker characteristics.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Feinauer discloses a system wherein the accent features comprise one or more pitch contours (pitch; p. 0057), intonation patterns (p. 0074), or phoneme pronunciations and the pitch contours comprise variations in pitch throughout the first input speech (characteristics of pitch; p. 0057), the intonation patterns comprise the rise and fall of pitch at the ends of phrases or sentences, or the phoneme pronunciations comprise a unique production of phonemes in the first accent (p. 0040, 0065, 0073, 0091, 0117).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Feinauer discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to receive the second input audio data via one or more communication networks and from a user computing device that is remote from the speech processing system (remote), wherein the second input audio data is captured at the user computing device (figs. 2-3 with p. 0051-0052).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Feinauer discloses a system wherein the modified second input audio data preserves aspects of a natural voice of the second user and mimics the first accent (duplicating accent/optimal accent; p. 0005-0007, 0054).
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) 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinauer in view of Kashtan et al. (PGPUB 2016/0275952), hereinafter referenced as Kashtan.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Feinauer discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to apply a mel frequency cepstral coefficient (MFCC) analysis (p. 0095), but does not specifically teach to extract a unique fingerprint of the voice of the second user, wherein the generated characteristics comprise the unique fingerprint.
Kashtan discloses a system comprising extracting a unique fingerprint of the voice of the second user, wherein the generated characteristics comprise the unique fingerprint (p. 0037-0045), to assist with identifying a user.
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 tailored user’s experience.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Kashtan discloses a system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to apply a speaker identity encoding technique to encode speaker-specific voice characteristics, wherein the generated characteristics comprise the speaker-specific voice characteristics (speech characteristics; p. 0037).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
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