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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 and 22-23 are presented for examination in this application (17977808) filed 10/31/2022, claiming priority and having an effective filing date of 10/19/2021.
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims
below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are
representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within
the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully
requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in
their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed 2025-11-10 have been fully considered. The arguments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections were not found to be persuasive. The arguments and remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections were found to be persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 101 rejections have been maintained and the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections have been overcome.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s response:
Applicant asserts Applicant respectfully asserts that the pending claims recite limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and, as such, do not recite a mental process (as alleged by the Office). For example, Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method that includes a number of computer-implemented functions not practically performed in the human mind, including:
" generate, via the encoder, one or more encoded features based on the output and the
one or more attributes” “displaying a sequence of gestures of the virtual agent on a display using the first
emotive gesture and the second emotive gesture of the virtual agent from the gesture
generation machine learning model”
Emphasis added.
As one particular example, paragraph [0034] of the present application describes that encoded features are formed by "transform[ing] the word embeddings 204 to latent representations 208, append[ing] the agent attributes 210 to these latent representations 208, and transform[ing] the combined representations." Accordingly, given the complexity of the claimed encoded features, a human mind is not equipped to "generate one or more encoded features based on the output and the one or more attributes," as recited by amended Claim 1. Additionally, the claimed step is explicitly described as being performed with an encoder, contrasting with a mental process.
As another example, paragraph [0067] of the present application describes the use of a display (e.g., display 914) is used "to display a sequence of gestures of the virtual agent based on an output of the gesture generation machine learning model." Applicant respectfully asserts that a human mind is incapable of performing such a display step using "the first emotive gesture and the second emotive gesture of the virtual agent," as required by amended Claim 1. Additionally, the claimed step is explicitly described as being performed with a display and a gesture generation machine learning model, contrasting with a mental process … Accordingly, none of the pending claim limitations fall within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas. For at least the reasons set forth above, none of the pending claim limitations fall within any of the three groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, according to MPEP 2106.04(a), the pending claims recite eligible subject matter and no further analysis needed.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds that while the arguments made regarding the limitations of generating, via the encoder, one or more encoded features and displaying a sequence of gesture of the virtual agent on a display are indeed not mental processes, there are limitations that remain that are abstract ideas such as the mathematical formulas that were added to the independent claims. In addition, there is no evident practical application or improvement shown from the claims that is provided with sufficient detail. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections have been maintained.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s response:
Applicant amended independent claims 1, 17, and 23 to include the allowable subject matter as noted in the office action dated 2025-07-30.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner agrees and notes that by including allowable subject matter, as deemed in the office action dated 2025-07-30, and by further search of the amended claims, the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections.
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 1-17, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended):
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
A method for gesture generation — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
wherein the gesture generation machine learning model is trained based on a loss function summing an angle loss, a pose loss, and an affective loss, wherein a ground-truth gesture comprises ground-truth relative rotation of a joint and wherein the second emotive gesture comprises a predicted relative rotation of the joint, the angle loss defined as:
L
a
n
g
=
∑
t
∑
j
(
E
u
l
q
j
,
t
-
E
u
l
q
^
j
,
t
)
2
+
(
E
u
l
q
j
,
t
-
E
u
l
q
j
,
t
-
1
-
E
u
l
q
^
j
,
t
-
E
u
l
q
^
j
,
t
-
1
)
2
, where
L
a
n
g
is the angle loss, t is the time for the second emotive gesture, j is a plurality of joints including the joint,
q
j
,
t
is the ground-truth relative rotation of a respective joint j at a respective time t,
q
^
j
,
t
is the predicted relative rotation of the respective joint j at the respective time t — this limitation is directed to mathematical formulas or equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
receiving a sequence of one or more word embeddings and one or more attributes — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
obtaining a gesture generation machine learning model — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
providing the sequence of one or more word embeddings and the one or more attributes to the gesture generation learning model — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
the gesture generation machine learning model configured to: receive, via an encoder, the sequence of the one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
produce, via, the encoder, an output based on the one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generate one or more encoded features based on the output and the one or more attributes — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
receive, via a decoder, the one or more encoded features and a first emotive gesture of a virtual agent, the first emotive gesture being generated from the decoder at a preceding time step — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
produce, via the decoder, a second emotive gesture based on the one or more encoded features and the first emotive gesture — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
displaying a sequence of gestures of the virtual agent on a display using the first emotive gesture and the second emotive gesture of the virtual agent from the gesture generation machine learning model — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “receiving a sequence of one or more word embeddings and one or more attributes”, “providing the sequence of one or more word embeddings and the one or more attributes to the gesture generation learning model”, “the gesture generation machine learning model configured to: receive, via an encoder, the sequence of the one or more word embeddings”, “produce, via, the encoder, an output based on the one or more word embeddings”, “receive, via a decoder, the one or more encoded features and a first emotive gesture of a virtual agent, the first emotive gesture being generated from the decoder at a preceding time step”, “produce, via the decoder, a second emotive gesture based on the one or more encoded features and the first emotive gesture”, and “displaying a sequence of gestures of the virtual agent on a display using the first emotive gesture and the second emotive gesture of the virtual agent from the gesture generation machine learning model” limitations were found to be insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 1. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 2 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
receiving a natural language input — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
converting the natural language input to the sequence of the one or more word embeddings using an embedding model — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “receiving a natural language input” limitation was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 2. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 3 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
further generating three-dimensional pose sequences based on the second emotive for the virtual agent corresponding to emotive gestures aligned with a natural language text input — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Regarding claim 4:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites an additional abstract idea:
wherein the natural language input comprises: a sentence — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the one or more attributes comprise: an intended emotion indication corresponding to the natural language input — this limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) VI.) as it merely specifies the attributes to emotion information.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than field of use to apply the exception. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the intended emotion indication comprises a set of values in a normalized valence-arousal-dominance (VAD) space — this limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) VI.) as it merely specifies the attributes to emotion information.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than field of use to apply the exception. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the one or more attributes comprise: an acting task, an agent gender indication, and an agent handedness indication — this limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) VI.) as it merely specifies the virtual agent to certain attributes of human characteristics for gesture generation.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than field of use to apply the exception. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
determining the virtual agent based on the agent gender indication and the agent handedness indication — this limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) VI.) as it merely specifies the virtual agent to certain attributes of human characteristics for gesture generation.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than field of use to apply the exception. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the encoder of the machine learning model produces one or more latent representations based on the sequence of the one or more word embeddings — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the machine learning model combines the one or more latent representations with the one or more attributes — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein a fully connected layer in the machine learning model transforms the combined one or more latent representations into the one or more encoded features — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein a fully connected layer in the machine learning model transforms the combined one or more latent representations into the one or more encoded features — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites an additional abstract idea:
signifying a position of each word embedding in the sequence of one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the encoder comprises one or more blocks — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
each block comprising an encoder self-attention component configured to receive the sequence of the one or more word embeddings and produce a self-attention output — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
a multi-head component configured to produce a multi-head output — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
and a fully connected layer configured to produce the one or more latent representations — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the encoder self-attention component is configured to project the sequence of the one or more word embeddings into a common space using a plurality of independent fully- connected layers corresponding to a plurality of trainable parameters — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
the plurality of trainable parameters associated at least with a query, a key, and a value for the sequence of the one or more word embeddings — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the multi-head component is configured to combine a plurality of different projections of a plurality of encoder self-attention components for the sequence of the one or more word embeddings — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
each encoder self-attention component corresponding to the encoder self- attention component, the plurality of different projections corresponding to a plurality of heads of the multi-head component — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the fully connected layer is configured to receive the combined plurality of different projections of the multi-head component and produce the one or more latent representations — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “each bock comprising an encoder self-attention component configured to receive the sequence of the one or more word embeddings and produce a self-attention output” and “wherein the fully connected layer is configured to receive the combined plurality of different projections of the multi-head component and produce the one or more latent representations” limitations were found to be insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 12. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.). MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the decoder comprises a masked multi-head component — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
the masked multi-head component configured to receive the first emotive gesture — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
combine a plurality of decoder self-attention components for the first emotive gesture — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “the masked multi-head component configured to receive the first emotive gesture” limitation was found to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in claim 13. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 14:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the decoder comprises one or more blocks — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
each block comprising: a first self-attention component — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
the masked multi-head component — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
a second self-attention component — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
a multi-head self-attention component — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
and a fully connected layer — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the multi-head self-attention component is configured to use the one or more encoded features as a query, the combined plurality of decoder self-attention components as a key, and the combined plurality of decoder self-attention components as a value in a self-attention operation — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
wherein the fully connected layer is configured to produce the second emotive gesture — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the second emotive gesture comprises a set of rotations on multiple body joints relative to one or more parent body joints based on the first emotive gesture — this limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) VI.) as it merely specifies the virtual agent to certain attributes of human characteristics for gesture generation.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than field of use to apply the exception. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16:
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1, which recited an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
wherein the second emotive gesture comprises head movement of the virtual agent — this limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h) VI.) as it merely specifies the virtual agent to certain attributes of human characteristics for gesture generation.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than field of use to apply the exception. Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17 (currently amended):
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
A method for gesture generation training — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
wherein the gesture generation machine learning model is trained based on a loss function summing an angle loss, a pose loss, and an affective loss, wherein a ground-truth gesture comprises ground-truth relative rotation of a joint and wherein the second emotive gesture comprises a predicted relative rotation of the joint, the pose loss defined as:
L
p
o
s
e
=
∑
t
∑
j
(
F
K
q
j
,
t
,
o
j
-
F
K
q
^
j
,
t
,
o
j
)
2
,
where
L
a
n
g
is the angle loss, t is a time for the second emotive gesture, j is a plurality of joints including the joint,
q
j
,
t
is the ground-truth relative rotation of a respective joint j at a respective time t,
q
^
j
,
t
is the predicted relative rotation of the respective joint j at the respective time t,
o
j
is an offset of the respective joint j, FK() is a forward kinematics — this limitation is directed to mathematical formulas or equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
receiving ground-truth gesture— this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
a sequence of one or more word embeddings and one or more attributes — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
providing the sequence of one or more word embeddings and the one or more attributes to the gesture generation learning model — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
the gesture generation machine learning model configured to: receive, via an encoder, the sequence of the one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
produce, via, the encoder, an output based on the one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generate one or more encoded features based on the output and the one or more attributes — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
receive, via a decoder, the one or more encoded features and a first emotive gesture of a virtual agent, the first emotive gesture being generated from the decoder at a preceding time step — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
produce, via the decoder, a second emotive gesture based on the one or more encoded features and the first emotive gesture — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
displaying a movement of the virtual agent on a display using the trained gesture generation machine learning model— this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “receiving ground-truth gesture”, “providing the sequence of one or more word embeddings and the one or more attributes to the gesture generation learning model”, “the gesture generation machine learning model configured to: receive, via an encoder, the sequence of the one or more word embeddings”, “produce, via, the encoder, an output based on the one or more word embeddings”, “receive, via a decoder, the one or more encoded features and a first emotive gesture of a virtual agent, the first emotive gesture being generated from the decoder at a preceding time step”, “produce, via the decoder, a second emotive gesture based on the one or more encoded features and the first emotive gesture”, and “displaying a movement of the virtual agent on a display using the trained gesture generation machine learning model” limitations were found to be insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 17. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Regarding claim 22 (currently amended):
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 17, which recited an abstract idea. The claim recites additional abstract ideas:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
— this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical formula or equation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B).
calculating a plurality of ground-truth affective features based on the ground-truth gesture — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C).
calculating a plurality of pose affective features based on the second emotive gesture — this limitation is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C).
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 23 (currently amended):
Step 1 – Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites abstract ideas:
wherein the gesture generation machine learning model is trained based on a loss function summing an angle loss, a pose loss, and an affective loss, wherein a ground-truth gesture comprises ground-truth relative rotation of a joint and wherein the second emotive gesture comprises a predicted relative rotation of the joint, the angle loss defined as:
L
a
n
g
=
∑
t
∑
j
(
E
u
l
q
j
,
t
-
E
u
l
q
^
j
,
t
)
2
+
(
E
u
l
q
j
,
t
-
E
u
l
q
j
,
t
-
1
-
E
u
l
q
^
j
,
t
-
E
u
l
q
^
j
,
t
-
1
)
2
, where
L
a
n
g
is the angle loss, t is the time for the second emotive gesture, j is a plurality of joints including the joint,
q
j
,
t
is the ground-truth relative rotation of a respective joint j at a respective time t,
q
^
j
,
t
is the predicted relative rotation of the respective joint j at the respective time t — this limitation is directed to mathematical formulas or equations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. B.)
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
a system for gesture generation — this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
a processor — this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
a memory having stored thereon a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to — this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
receive a sequence of one or more word embeddings and one or more attributes — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
obtain a gesture generation machine learning model — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
provide the sequence of one or more word embeddings and the one or more attributes to the gesture generation learning model — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
the gesture generation machine learning model configured to: receive, via an encoder, the sequence of the one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
produce, via, the encoder, an output based on the one or more word embeddings — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generate one or more encoded features based on the output and the one or more attributes — the process of classifying and organizing data amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computer components merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
receive, via a decoder, the one or more encoded features and a first emotive gesture of a virtual agent, the first emotive gesture being generated from the decoder at a preceding time step — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
produce, via the decoder, a second emotive gesture based on the one or more encoded features and the first emotive gesture — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
display a sequence of gestures of the virtual agent on a display using the first emotive gesture and the second emotive gesture of the virtual agent from the gesture generation machine learning model — this limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any additional elements that were determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A prong 2 are further evaluated in step 2B on whether they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The “receiving a sequence of one or more word embeddings and one or more attributes”, “providing the sequence of one or more word embeddings and the one or more attributes to the gesture generation learning model”, “the gesture generation machine learning model configured to: receive, via an encoder, the sequence of the one or more word embeddings”, “produce, via, the encoder, an output based on the one or more word embeddings”, “receive, via a decoder, the one or more encoded features and a first emotive gesture of a virtual agent, the first emotive gesture being generated from the decoder at a preceding time step”, “produce, via the decoder, a second emotive gesture based on the one or more encoded features and the first emotive gesture”, and “displaying a sequence of gestures of the virtual agent on a display using the first emotive gesture and the second emotive gesture of the virtual agent from the gesture generation machine learning model” limitations were found to be insignificant extra-solution activities in claim 23. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
US 11593631 B2 — discloses a system that can analyze emotional state, movement prediction, and gait analysis
“Predicting Head Pose from Speech with a Conditional Variational Autoencoder” — Greenwood et al. — discloses predicting head pose from emotive head movements
“Novel Realizations of Speech-Driven Head Movements with Generative Adversarial Networks” — Sadoughi et al. — discloses predictions of head poses that elicited emotions
“Body Movements for Affective Expression: A Survey of Automatic Recognition and Generation” — Karg et al. — discloses the PAD framework which is identical in function and representation to the VAD framework
“Emotion Recognition from Skeletal Movements” — Sapiński et al. — discloses deep neural networks to recognize the emotional state of skeletal motion sequences
“Generating Emotive Gaits for Virtual Agents Using Affect-Based Autoregression” — Bhattacharya et al. hereinafter Bhattacharya 2 — discloses machine learning techniques to classify between different emotions
“Text2Gestures: A Transformer-Based Network for Generating Emotive Body Gestures for Virtual Agents” — Bhattacharya et al. hereinafter Bhattacharya 3 — discloses machine learning techniques to classify between different emotions
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew A Bracero whose telephone number is (571)270-0592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET.
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, David Yi can be reached at Monday - Friday 9:00a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET at (571)270-7519. 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.
/ANDREW BRACERO/Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126