DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 12-16-2024. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14-17, 19-23 are pending and have been considered below:
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 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14-17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14-17, 19-23 include system and method type claims. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14-17, 19-23 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
generate an inventory of phrases based on the prior activity of the user;
and remove a phrase from the inventory of phrases to generate an updated inventory of phrases without the phrase in response to the phrase being spoken by the animated character head during the personalized interaction with the user such that the updated inventory of phrases is presented in an initial display on the display screen of the base station control system as the user approaches the animated character head for a future personalized interaction with the user and such that the updated inventory of phrases is available to be spoken by the animated character head during the future personalized interaction with the user.
(mental process – a user can manually track user and generate responses while determining what phrases in an inventory have been spoken previously);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more processors (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive, from one or more identification devices configured to detect an identifier supported by a wearable device of a user, signal data indicative of prior activity of the user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head; (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-see MPEP 2106.05(g))
instruct display of the inventory of phrases on a display screen of a base station control system associated with the animated character head in response to the user approaching the animated character head to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
one or more processors (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive, from one or more identification devices configured to detect an identifier supported by a wearable device of a user, signal data indicative of prior activity of the user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head; (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, is well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as present in the claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
and instruct display of the inventory of phrases at a base station control system associated with an animated character head to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1:
wherein the prior activity of the user comprises an attraction visited by the user. (mental process – a user can manually track user activity including activity at an attraction);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
One or more processors (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive the signal data that indicates that the user approaching the animated character head after the user has exited the attraction of the amusement park;
and instruct display of the updated inventory of phrases in the initial display on the display screen of the base station control system in response to receiving the signal data, wherein at least one phrase in the updated inventory of phrases relates to the attraction (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
One or more processors (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive the signal data that indicates that the user approaching the animated character head after the user has exited the attraction of the amusement park;
and instruct display of the updated inventory of phrases in the initial display on the display screen of the base station control system in response to receiving the signal data, wherein at least one phrase in the updated inventory of phrases relates to the attraction (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
Identification devices comprises one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) readers, and the identifier comprises a RFID tag.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Identification devices comprises one or more radio frequency identification (RFID) readers, and the identifier comprises a RFID tag.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1:
Determine a recommended phrase in the updated inventory of phrases based on prior activity; (mental process – a user can make a judgement on phrases to use);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
One or more processors (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Highlight the recommended phrase in the updated inventory of phrases in the initial display on the display screen of the base station control system for visualization by a handler (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
One or more processors (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
Highlight the recommended phrase in the updated inventory of phrases in the initial display on the display screen of the base station control system for visualization by a handler (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the base station control system and the animated character head, wherein the base station control system and the animated character head comprise respective audio communication devices that enable a handler operating the base station control system to verbally communicate with a performer wearing the animated character head. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the base station control system and the animated character head, wherein the base station control system and the animated character head comprise respective audio communication devices that enable a handler operating the base station control system to verbally communicate with a performer wearing the animated character head. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the base station control system is configured to receive, from a handler, a selection input to select the phrase for the personalized interaction and the base station control system is configured to communicate the selection input to the animated character head for the personalized interaction.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the base station control system is configured to receive, from a handler, a selection input to select the phrase for the personalized interaction and the base station control system is configured to communicate the selection input to the animated character head for the personalized interaction.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
the selection input to select the phrase is configured to cause a speaker of the animated character head to output the phrase as audio.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the selection input to select the phrase is configured to cause a speaker of the animated character head to output the phrase as audio.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 1:
access an inventory of phrases available to the animated character head in response to respective signal data from at least one identification device of the one or more identification devices indicating that the user is approaching the animated character head; modify the inventory of phrases to generate a personalized inventory of phrases based on the prior activities of the user; exclude one or more phrases from the personalized inventory of phrases to generate an updated personalized inventory of phrases without the one or more phrases in response to the one or more phrases being previously spoken by the animated character head to the user; (mental process – a user can mentally access phrases, identify user activity and determine what phrases in an inventory have been spoken previously and remove them);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more processors, identification devices
and wearable devices (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive, from the one or more identification devices, signal data indicative of prior activities of the user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head
(adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-see MPEP 2106.05(g))
and instruct display of the updated personalized inventory of phrases on an initial display as the user approaches the animated character head such that the updated personalized inventory of phrases is available to be spoken by the animated character head to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
one or more processors, identification devices
and wearable devices (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
receive, from the one or more identification devices, signal data indicative of prior activities of the user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head
(MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, is well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as present in the claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed storing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer)
and instruct display of the updated personalized inventory of phrases on an initial display as the user approaches the animated character head such that the updated personalized inventory of phrases is available to be spoken by the animated character head to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the one or more identification devices comprise one or more radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers, and the identifier comprises a RFID tag.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the one or more identification devices comprise one or more radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers, and the identifier comprises a RFID tag.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 1:
prior activities comprise an achievement within an attraction of the amusement park (mental process – a user can observe activities );
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
One or more processors (no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
and instruct display of information that indicates the achievement within the attraction. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
One or more processors (no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
and instruct display of information that indicates the achievement within the attraction. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 1:
determining, that the user is approaching the animated character head; accessing, the prior activity of the user; identifying, one or more previously spoken phrases that were previously spoken by the animated character head to the user during one or more previous interactions between the animated character head and the user; generating, a list of phrases based on the prior activity of the user; excluding, the one or more previously spoken phrases from the list of phrases to generate an updated list of phrases without the one or more previously spoken phrases in response to the one or more previously spoken phrases being previously spoken by the animated character head to the user; (mental process – a user can manually track user activity and determine what phrases in an inventory have been spoken previously and remove them);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
using one or more processors and based on the signal data,
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
the one or more processors,
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
generating, via one or more identification devices configured to detect an identifier supported by a wearable device of a user, signal data indicative of prior activity of a user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
and instructing, an initial display of the updated list of phrases as the user approaches the animated character head such that the updated list of phrases is available to be spoken by the animated character head to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
using one or more processors and based on the signal data,
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
the one or more processors,
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
generating, via one or more identification devices configured to detect an identifier supported by a wearable device of a user, signal data indicative of prior activity of a user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head;
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
and instructing, an initial display of the updated list of phrases as the user approaches the animated character head such that the updated list of phrases is available to be spoken by the animated character head to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 19:
2A Prong 1:
prior activity of the user comprises a ride attraction visited by the user (mental process – a user can observe activities );
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 20:
2A Prong 1:
a preferred language of the user, wherein the list of phrases comprises one or more phrases in the preferred language of the user. (mental process – a user can observe and determine language to use );
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more processors,
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
one or more processors,
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
With respect to claim 21:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more processors are configured to:
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive further data that indicates that the user is present at the attraction of the amusement park or an additional attraction after the personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user; and control an element of the attraction of the amusement park or the additional attraction based on the personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
one or more processors are configured to:
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive further data that indicates that the user is present at the attraction of the amusement park or an additional attraction after the personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user; and control an element of the attraction of the amusement park or the additional attraction based on the personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 22:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
comprising the animated character head, wherein the animated character head comprises: one or more actuators configured to adjust the animated character head to perform animations; and one or more status sensors to monitor status of the one or more actuators. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
comprising the animated character head, wherein the animated character head comprises: one or more actuators configured to adjust the animated character head to perform animations; and one or more status sensors to monitor status of the one or more actuators. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
With respect to claim 23:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas recited
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more processors are configured to:
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive, from the one or more status sensors, an indication that an actuator of the one or more actuators is not functioning properly; and remove an animation from a list of available animation selections in response to receiving the indication. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
one or more processors are configured to:
(mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
receive, from the one or more status sensors, an indication that an actuator of the one or more actuators is not functioning properly; and remove an animation from a list of available animation selections in response to receiving the indication. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (over prior art) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e. claim 22). Claim 23 has not overcome the 101 rejection.
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 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 1-2, 4, 6-11, 14-17, 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlon et al. (“Scanlon” 20190188061 A1) in view of Irmler et al. (“Irmler” 20130226588 A1) and Xiaojiang (20140122083 A1).
Claim 1: Scanlon discloses an interactive system, comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive, from one or more identification devices configured to detect an identifier supported by a wearable device of a user (Paragraph 31; RFID tag), signal data indicative of prior activity of the user within an amusement park and indicative of the user approaching an animated character head (Paragraphs 18 (sensors detect presence at interaction site), 42 and 46-47; follow a storyline for visit to different interaction area in a park);
phrases based on the prior activity of the user and instruct a control system associated with the animated character head (Paragraph 51; animated character) in response to the user approaching (Paragraph 18; sensors determine approach to interaction site) to facilitate a personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user (Paragraphs 11, 13, 31 and 35-40; personally identified client allows for dialog based on interactions in order to guide/coach through storyline);
Scanlon may not explicitly disclose generate an inventory of phrases; and instruct display of the inventory of phrases on a display screen of a base station control system;
and generate an updated inventory of phrases without the phrase in response to the phrase being spoken by the animated character head during the personalized interaction with the user such that the updated inventory of phrases is presented in an initial display on the display screen of the base station control system as the user approaches the animated character head for a future personalized interaction with the user and such that the updated inventory of phrases is available to be spoken by the animated character head during the future personalized interaction with the user.
Irmler is provided because it offers an interactive environment, where a user is identified (Paragraph 17, RFID tag) for generating an inventory of phrases for display in a monitoring room (base station control) (Figure 1:160 and Paragraphs 24, 32 and 34), the phrases are provided to an animated character (Paragraphs 12). This provides a personalized interaction which is further enhanced by the table of responses which are updated to cycle through used phrases after interactions in order to avoid repetitive interactions (Figures 3a-b, Paragraphs 17, 27-28 (cycle through phrases) and 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide a collection of phrases in the storyline of Scanlon and further update the inventory to keep from repeating phrases as taught by Irmler. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it improves feedback capability and allows for another level of customization avoiding unnatural and monotonous interactions (Irmler: Paragraph 28).
Last, Scanlon and Irmler also may not explicitly disclose remove a phrase from an inventory of phrases;
Xiaojiang is provided because it offers an interaction between a user and virtual agent, additionally the system provides phrases that are previously used and removed/deleted from future use by the virtual agent (Paragraphs 88-89).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide removal of phrases in the storyline of the modified Scanlon. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it improves feedback capability and allows for enhanced conversation flow, removing possible redundant or erroneous outputs for improved user experience.
Claim 2: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, wherein the prior activity of the user comprises an attraction visited by the user (Scanlon: Paragraph 42; theme park).
Claim 4: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, wherein the signal data indicates that the user has exited an attraction of the amusement park, and the one or more processors are configured to: receive the signal data that indicates that the user is approaching the animated character head after the user has exited the attraction of the amusement park; and instruct display of the updated inventory of phrases in the initial display on the display screen of the base station control system in response to receiving the signal data, wherein at least one phrase in the updated inventory of phrases relates to the attraction (Scanlon: Paragraphs 16, 23, 42 and 46-47; user travels from one interaction site to another and storyline (Paragraph: 13, dialog) can evolve through interactions).
Claim 6: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, wherein the one or more identification devices comprises one or more radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers, and the identifier comprises a RFID tag (Scanlon: Paragraphs 18 and 31; RFID sensor and Irmler: Figure 1:116 and Paragraph 17: RFID).
Claim 7: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a recommended phrase in the updated inventory of phrases based on the prior activity, and to highlight the recommended phrase in the updated inventory of phrases in the initial display on the display screen of the base station control system for visualization by a handler (Irmler: Paragraphs 17-19; most relevant phrases provided, Paragraph 28(updated phrases are cycled through)).
Claim 8: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, comprising the base station control system and the animated character head, wherein the base station control system and the animated character head comprise respective audio communication devices that enable a handler operating the base station control system to verbally communicate with a performer wearing the animated character head (Irmler: Figure 1 and Paragraphs 11 and 25; microphone for communication by operator).
Claim 9: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, comprising the base station control system, wherein the base station control system is configured to receive, from a handler, a selection input to select the phrase for the personalized interaction and the base station control system is configured to communicate the selection input to the animated character head for the personalized interaction (Irmler: Figure 1 and Paragraphs 11-13, 25; communication by operator Paragraph 28 (manual selection)).
Claim 10: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 9, wherein the selection input to select the phrase is configured to cause a speaker of the animated character head to output the phrase as audio (Scanlon: Paragraph 13; dialog of virtual agent and Irmler: abstract, Paragraph 27).
Claims 11 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
(Scanlon: Paragraphs 11, 13, 31 and 35-40; personally identified client allows for dialog based on interactions in order to guide/coach through storyline and Irmler: Paragraph 17-19, 27-28; most relevant phrases regarding user provided, and updated to cycle through unused phrases).
Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to instruct display of information that indicates the achievement within the attraction (Scanlon: Paragraphs 9 and 40; participatory/plot completion).
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 1, comprising the animated character head, wherein the animated character head comprises: one or more actuators configured to adjust the animated character head to perform animations; and one or more status sensors to monitor status of the one or more actuators (Irmler: Paragraphs 12 and 14-15, camera (sensor) used to monitor environment including robot performing animation).
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlon et al. (“Scanlon” 20190188061 A1), Irmler et al. (“Irmler” 20130226588 A1) and Xiaojiang (20140122083 A1) in further view of Borucki et al. (“Borucki” 20140278605 A1).
Claim 20: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses a method of claim 17, comprising accessing, using the one or more processors, a preferred language of the user, wherein the list of phrases comprises one or more phrases in the preferred language of the user (Scanlon: Paragraph 20, client profile and Irmler: Paragraph 17; user profiles).
Borucki is provided because it offers an interaction between a user and virtual agent, additionally the system provides communication in a desired language based on a user profile (Paragraph 46).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide a desired language in user profiles of the modified Scanlon. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it improves feedback capability and allows for enhanced conversation flow improving user experience.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scanlon et al. (“Scanlon” 20190188061 A1), Irmler et al. (“Irmler” 20130226588 A1) and Xiaojiang (20140122083 A1) in further view of Briggs et al. (“Briggs” 20180284881 A1).
Claim 21: Scanlon, Irmler and Xiaojiang discloses an interactive system of claim 2, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive further data that indicates that the user is present at the attraction of the amusement park or an additional attraction after the personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user; and control an element of the attraction of the amusement park or the additional attraction based on the personalized interaction between the animated character head and the user (Scanlon: Paragraphs 42 and 46-47; interaction at a theme park).
Briggs is provided because it offers an interaction between a user and virtual entity, additionally the system maintains history of interaction with multiple attractions and determines elements to control based on the interaction (Figure 1b-c and Paragraphs 95, 112 and 125-127; board provides interaction with screen and animated user/head and after tracking user, controls elements such as statistics for display).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve a similar device and provide feedback through element control after user interaction in the modified Scanlon. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it improves feedback capability and delivers a more engaging experience for the user.
Response to Arguments
The claims remain rejected under 101, the abstract idea of determining phrases to present based on identification and prior interactions are features which can be performed through a mental process. The inclusion of processors, identification devices and a display screen to implement the abstract idea are seen as generic computer component operating within in its’ ordinary capacity. Additionally, the functionality of updating an inventory of phrases and the mere presenting on a display does not integrate into a practical application, nor include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the limitation of updating an inventory of phrases on a display screen, see Irmler which generates an inventory of phrases for display in a monitoring room (base station control) (Figure 1:160 and Paragraphs 24, 32 and 34), the phrases are provided to an animated character (Paragraphs 12). This provides a personalized interaction which is further enhanced by the table of responses which are updated to cycle through used phrases after interactions in order to avoid repetitive interactions (Figures 3a-b, Paragraphs 17, 27-28 (cycle through phrases) and 32).
Regarding the removing of a phrase limitation, applicant’s remark of an additional step provided by Xiaojiang in removing a phrase from the inventory is not prohibited by the claim limitation. The additional features including the personalized phrase interaction are captured in Scanlon and Irmler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STENZLER ET AL. 9616350 B2 Column 31, Lines 1-40
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
4-2-2025