PTAB

IPR2025-01123

Google LLC v. SoundClear Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Voice-Content Control Device, Voice-Content Control Method, and Non-Transitory Storage Medium
  • Brief Description: The ’337 patent describes a voice-content control device that adjusts its audible responses to user commands based on both the user's distance and voice characteristics. The system classifies a user's voice as a "first voice" (e.g., normal volume, far away) or a "second voice" (e.g., whispered, nearby) to provide different outputs, such as a full response at a higher volume or an abbreviated response at a lower volume, to enhance user privacy.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are obvious over Ocampo in view of Yi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ocampo (Application # US 2018/0122361) and Yi (Application # US 2014/0303971).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ocampo, the primary reference, disclosed the core functionality of the challenged claims. Ocampo taught a user device with dynamic text-to-speech (TTS) that automatically controlled its voice output in response to user commands. Specifically, Ocampo’s device used a "proximity classifier" and a "voice classifier" to determine a user’s distance and detect voice attributes like whispering. Based on this classification, Ocampo’s device adjusted the volume of its response, providing a quieter, whispered response when the user was close and whispering (a "second voice") and a louder response when the user was farther away (a "first voice"). Petitioner asserted that Ocampo’s system met the limitations of claim 1 regarding a proximity sensor, a voice classifying unit that uses distance, a process executing unit, a voice-content generating unit, and an output controller that adjusts volume.

      Petitioner contended that while Ocampo taught adjusting response volume based on proximity and voice type, it did not explicitly teach adjusting response content by omitting information for the "second voice" (whispered/close) scenario. To bridge this gap, Petitioner introduced Yi, which taught a mobile terminal focused on enhancing user privacy by restricting its vocalized responses. Yi explicitly disclosed omitting information from a generated response when the user was detected to be in close proximity or whispering. For example, in response to a weather query, Yi’s device would provide a full audible sentence when the user was distant but would provide a response with omitted information (or no audible response at all) when the user was close to the microphone. Petitioner argued that adding Yi’s teaching of content omission to Ocampo’s system rendered obvious the claimed feature of generating a "second output sentence in which information is omitted" when the voice is classified as the second type. The combination also taught adjusting volume differently for the full versus the omitted response, as both references independently taught volume control based on proximity.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Ocampo and Yi to enhance user privacy, a common goal of both references. A POSITA starting with Ocampo’s system, which already adjusted volume for privacy, would look for other known techniques to further improve discreetness. Yi provided a straightforward solution by teaching the restriction of audible information output based on the same triggers Ocampo used (proximity and whispering). The combination represented a simple application of Yi’s privacy feature (content omission) to Ocampo's similar privacy-focused system to create a more robust privacy solution.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Both Ocampo and Yi employed conventional and well-understood technologies like proximity sensing and TTS synthesis. Integrating Yi’s method of omitting text from a TTS-generated response into Ocampo’s framework would be a predictable combination of known elements to achieve the desired result of enhanced privacy without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’337 patent as unpatentable.