DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing filed on March 30, 2026 Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-20 have been examined in this application.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-13, and 18-20 are amended, Claims 3 and 5 are cancelled, and Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the prior art of record in each and every rejection under § 102 and § 103, but have not overcome the rejection under § 101.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 6/21/2023, 12/22/2023, 7/25/2024, and 4/14/2026 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under § 101, the use of a display screen of an electronic device in a conversation learning method does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As a result, the present claimed invention can be performed in the human mind and still falls within the “organizing human processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the rejection under § 101 stands.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding rejection under § 102, independent claims 1 and 18 have been amended requiring new grounds of search. As a result, applicant’s arguments for claims 1-20 are now considered moot.
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, and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-17 are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claims 18-20 are drawn to a device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 1 and 18 recite a conversation learning service method provided on an electronic device having a display screen, the method being executed by a computer device comprising at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory, and comprising: displaying a first text on a first display screen of a first electronic device; providing a first role interface on the first display screen to enable a first learning participant to record an audio utterance by the first learning participant of the first text displayed on the first display screen using the first role interface; registering the audio uttered by a-the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in an a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region; providing a second role interface in a role-playing format on a second display screen of a second learner, the role-playing format displaying a conversational text in a role-playing format using a first sentence corresponding to the first pronunciation content of the first learning participant and a second sentence displayed to be read and uttered by the second learning participant following a playback of an audio of the first sentence uttered by the first learning participant; and registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface. If claim limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 and 18 recite abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: A conversation learning service method provided on an electronic device having a display screen, the method being executed by a computer device comprising at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory, and comprising:
displaying a first text on a first display screen of a first electronic device; providing a first role interface on the first display screen to enable a first learning participant to record an audio utterance by the first learning participant of the first text displayed on the first display screen using the first role interface;
registering the audio uttered by a-the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region;
providing a second role interface in a role-playing format on a second display screen of a second learner, the role-playing format displaying a conversational text in a role-playing format using a first sentence corresponding to the first pronunciation content of the first learning participant and a second sentence displayed to be read and uttered by the second learning participant following a playback of an audio of the first sentence uttered by the first learning participant; and
registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface.
Representative Claim 17: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the conversation learning service method of claim 1 on a computer device.
Representative Claim 18: A computer device comprising: at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions recorded in a memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute:
displaying a first text on a first display screen of a first electronic device; providing a first role interface on the first display screen to enable a first learning participant to record an audio utterance by the first learning participant of the first text displayed on the first display screen using the first role interface;
registering the audio uttered by the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region; and
providing a second role interface in a role-playing format on a second display screen of a second learner, the role-playing format displaying a conversational text including format using a first sentence corresponding to the first pronunciation content of the first learning participant and a second sentence displayed to be read and uttered by the second learning participant following a playback of an audio of the first sentence uttered by the first learning participant; and
registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements of a processor, an electronic device, a display screen and a non-transitory computer readable medium are generic computer components for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05 (f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: a conversation learning service method executed on a computer device comprising at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory, the conversation learning service method comprising: displaying text on a screen; providing an interface to record audio; registering audio; and providing a second interface for playing back audio (i.e., organizing human processes), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps are a simulation that applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (observation (displaying text, providing an interface, and registering audio)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, and 18 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea user profiles, multiple sentences, conversation topics (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 18 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 and 18 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “electronic devices”, “display screens”, “displaying or providing text”, “providing an interface”, and “registering audio”, etc. (Claims 1 and 18) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “electronic devices”, “display screens”, “displaying or providing text”, “providing an interface”, and “registering audio” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1, and 18, and dependent claims 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., executed on a computer device, at least one processor, electronic devices, and display screens etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of a method executed on a computer device and having at least one processor (Claim(s) 1 and 18), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20, fail to include any additional elements.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1 and 18, and dependent claims 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of user profiles, multiple sentences, conversation topics, and role playing (Claim(s) 1, and 18), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0065] acknowledges that “A conversation learning service system according to the example embodiments may be implemented by at least one computer device and a conversation learning service method according to the example embodiments may be performed by the at least one computer device included in the conversation learning service system” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program), and paragraph [0067] “Each of the plurality of electronic devices 110, 120, 130, and 140 may be a fixed terminal or a mobile terminal that is configured as a computer device. For example, the plurality of electronic devices 110, 120, 130, and 140 may be a smartphone, a mobile phone, a navigation device, a computer, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable multimedia player (PMP), a tablet personal computer (PC), and the like” (i.e. examples of common computing devices). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 4, 6, and 20 recite clarifications of providing an interface for playing back or recording conversations, and providing an interface to display profile information of both participants in the conversation. These limitations are further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as the interface is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the computing device/interface acting as an intermediary for performing the abstract idea of having a conversation, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 7-17 recite setting a tone of emotion, adding text to a conversation tree, displaying or highlighting user profile information, selecting a topic of conversation from a list, selecting a conversational participant from a list, and displaying information about each topic and participant including historical information. Such clarifications, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are merely defining/selecting a type of data to be manipulated which, per MPEP 2106.05(g), is insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claims 2, and 19 recite further abstract ideas including providing conversational text provided by a conversation participant on a given topic (mental process), and registering an uttered voice (CMOHA). As the limitations are further abstract ideas, the limitations cannot meaningfully limit or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further insignificant extra-solution activities including providing an interface for displaying conversational text. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims 2, 4, 6-17, and 19-20 amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (US 2019/0198011 A1), in view of Annaz et al. (US 2007/0255570 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kerr discloses a conversation learning service method provided on an electronic device having a display screen, the method being executed by a computer device comprising at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory ([0010] By using a simple personal computer (or similar computing device, e.g., a game console, smartphone or tablet computer) to make audio-only and/or audiovisual takes that can be uploaded to an Internet site , a huge worldwide audience (e.g., the employees of a large multinational corporation) is within reach, [0012] In one embodiment, an Internet-based application allows a trainee to sign in to a website to record a performance, thus creating a take. For example, think of a scene between persons A and B, with the persons alternately speaking their respective lines for roles A and B, respectively), and comprising:
displaying a first text on a first display screen of a first electronic device (Fig. 4B Displaying Text on Screen of an Electronic Device);
providing a first role interface on the first display screen to enable a first learning participant to record an audio utterance by the first learning participant of the first text displayed on the first display screen using the first role interface ([0063] FIG. 5 shows the Practice screen (first role interface) for a particular scenario (“My box is not working”) that had been previously assigned to the trainee user… Two Practice buttons are also provided. The first button allows the user to practice with a script; the second button allows unscripted practice, [0065] …then to zero seconds, at which time the Record screen of FIG. 9 appears. The text of the customer role appears and progress bar that grows in the direction of the arrow as the customer role is heard. This allows the user-trainee to prepare for his or her forthcoming performance… The user script is displayed and a progress bar paces the user in speaking the role, [0066] In one embodiment, the system alternately plays the customer part(s) and the trainee part(s) sequentially to repro-duce the entire scenario); and
providing a second role interface in a role-playing format on a second display screen of a second learner, the role-playing format displaying a conversational text including a first sentence corresponding to the first pronunciation content of the first learning participant and a second sentence displayed to be read and uttered by the second learning participant following a playback of an audio of the first sentence uttered by the first learning participant ([0007] The instant invention enables a user to perform a first role from a scripted scenario and record his or her performance while listening to and/or watching a take of a second role from the scenario's script (implies a second role interface – second participant had to be able to record their portion of the script), [0008] the takes of different roles within a scenario may be combined with one another, so as to form a "scene," wherein the scene's constituent takes appear to have been recorded at the same time even though these takes have been recorded asynchronously and remotely (implies an interface for each participant), [0013] These defined time frames allow any user's take to be combinable with any take of another role in the script, such that, for example, performances of role A's and B's respective lines, when played, do not overlap in contravention of the script, so as to create a scene wherein the user's role A performance is seemingly performed together with role B’s recorded performance, [0014] The take of role B may be either prerecorded (second role interface for recording the pronunciation content)).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing registering the audio uttered by the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region; and registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface.
Annaz teaches registering the audio uttered by the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region ([0025] The visual pronunciation dictionary 105 utilizes only native speakers having the capability to deliver a fluent, phonologically and syntactically complete form of the language to be recorded in the video presentation, [0034] Country 410 represents a country of the target language to be searched (country of origin), [0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like); and
registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface ([0025] The visual pronunciation dictionary 105 utilizes only native speakers having the capability to deliver a fluent, phonologically and syntactically complete form of the language to be recorded in the video presentation, [0034] Country 410 represents a country of the target language to be searched (country of origin), [0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like).
Kerr and Annaz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of training or improving communication skills. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the conversation learning techniques, as disclosed by Kerr, further including registering the audio uttered by the learning participant as pronunciation content in an accent that represents the learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region as taught by Annaz for the purpose of enabling a learner to visualize and hear a target language (Annaz, [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kerr discloses wherein the conversational text is on a specific topic selected by the second learning participant in the role-playing format ([0009] The company trainer establishes the curriculum in the form of scenarios that lay out particular interactions with customers. The trainer instructs the trainee what to say and how to say it by providing the scripts for, e.g., a customer complaint and the proper way the trainee should respond, [0016] This juxtaposition capability can be also used for evaluating rehearsals and auditions (e.g., for a movie or theater role), for evaluating an interviewee for a job (e.g., for a customer service position), for evaluating a current employee's communication skills, for evaluating a person's foreign language skills… As employees advance, they can be assigned the next phase in course work. Scenarios can also be grouped into Practice Sets by theme (specific topic)—for example, if a trainer wants the trainee to focus on the First Call with a Customer—his can be setup as a Practice Set and include multiple scenarios, [0026] For example, a beginning student may be given a full script to practice a basic conversational scenario in a foreign language (specific topic), [0061] A “ SCENARIOS ” button (lower right) shows the number of scenarios currently assigned to the user; selecting that button takes the user to a listing of all the assigned scenarios on the “Scenarios” screen, which is shown in FIG. 4B. FIG. 4A shows Practice Sets, [0071] The trainer creates both sides of the scenario, i.e., both the customer's lines and the customer service representative's (trainee's) lines (conversational text)).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing using pronunciation content in a specific accent selected by the second learning participant.
Annaz teaches using pronunciation content in a specific accent selected by the second learning participant ([0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like).
Regarding Claim 4, Kerr discloses wherein the providing of the conversational text in the role-playing format comprises providing the first role user interface for playing back pronunciation content in the first accent and the second role user interface for playing back pronunciation content in the second accent different from the first accent with respect to sentences that are sequentially given in the sentence order of the conversational text ([0008] the takes of different roles within a scenario may be combined with one another, so as to form a "scene," wherein the scene's constituent takes appear to have been recorded at the same time even though these takes have been recorded asynchronously and remotely, [0018] The scenario's constituent role A take can be switched out (interchanged) with any other take of role A without modifying any of the following: (1) either role A take or (2) the scenario's constituent role B take. Moreover, without modifying any of the aforesaid, the newly interchanged take would also be juxtaposable with the scenario's constituent role B take, or with any other subsequent take of role B).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing playing back pronunciation content in the first accent and playing back pronunciation content in the second accent different from the first accent.
Annaz teaches playing back pronunciation content in an accent ([0031] the default menu may be coordinated with one or more languages selected depending on needs of the user, as compatible with hardware, Software, memory, visual and audio playback capabilities of the VPD platform 105, [0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kerr discloses wherein the first role interface registers the first pronunciation content ([0007] The instant invention enables a user to perform a first role from a scripted scenario and record (register) his or her performance while listening to and/or watching a take of a second role from the scenario's script, [0012] For example, think of a scene between persons A and B, with the persons alternately speaking their respective lines for roles A and B, respectively).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing profile information of the first learning participant, and the second role interface includes profile information of the second learning participant.
Annaz teaches profile information of the first learning participant, and the second role interface includes profile information of the second learning participant ([0058] As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu (gender and age are pieces of data that fall under profile information) 300, [0063] In addition, a plurality of VPDs 105 may be configured for multi-user, networked functionality, either via local network, Internet, or broadcast (this indicates that users can simultaneously use the program and check profiles on different interfaces)).
Regarding Claim 9, Kerr discloses wherein the providing of the first role interface and the second role interface comprises highlighting and displaying profile information corresponding in turn between the profile information of the first learning participant and the profile information of the second learning participant ([0012] The system delivers the lines to be performed in a teleprompter format. The trainee is assigned to perform role A (e.g., the role of a customer service representative), and the system presents each line to be spoken by the trainee with a time progress bar indicating the duration, speed, and/or timing for that line. Preferably, a take of role B is played so that the user can interact with someone speaking the lines of role B (e.g., the part of an aggrieved customer), [0065] When the customer completes the first line of the customer role, the screen shown in FIG. 10 appears. The user script is displayed and a progress bar paces the user in speaking the role. If the customer role has additional line(s), a screen similar to FIG. 9 will then display with the next customer line. This is followed by a version of FIG. 10 with the next user line and so forth until both roles of the scenario have been completely performed).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing profile information of the first learning participant and the profile information of the second learning participant.
Annaz teaches profile information of the first learning participant and the profile information of the second learning participant ([0058] As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300 (age and gender are types of profile information for a learning participant)).
Regarding Claim 11, Kerr discloses the conversation learning service method wherein the providing of the conversational text in the role-playing format further comprises providing at least one of an interface for playing back a pronunciation content and an interface for inputting a positive response in units of sentences each in which the playback of the pronunciation content or the recording of the uttered voice is completed ([0014] Second, when actor B has a speaking part, the system, in synchrony with the playing of actor B’s prerecorded take, (1) plays for the user his or her contemporaneous audio-only and/or audiovisual reaction to actor B's speech (playing back pronunciation content) and (2) may also display the appropriate line, teleprompter style, that actor B is performing at the moment along with the duration of said line, [0016] Because of the way each line of each role is timed, takes of roles A and B can be randomly chosen and combined (juxtaposed) such that a coherent scene will always result, wherein the A and B takes will not speak over one another in contravention of the script (role-playing format)).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing an interface for playing back a pronunciation content.
Annaz teaches an interface for playing back a pronunciation content ([0031] As indicated above, the executable functions 160 may include the functions of play, pause, replay).
Regarding Claim 13, Kerr discloses wherein the providing of the conversational text in the role-playing format comprises:
providing a topic list that includes topics selectable as a learning topic (Claim 1 selecting a training scenario from an internet connected server, wherein a script is associated with the scenario, wherein the script contains at least two roles).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing providing a conversational text on a specific topic selected from the topic list as content for language learning of the second learning participant.
Annaz teaches providing a conversational text on a specific topic selected from the topic list as content for language learning of the second learning participant ([0040] As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the category dictionary mode provides entries grouped in specified, narrowed-down scope. Such as topic, semantic field, communicative function, or other principles of selection for presenting, studying and learning a vocabulary).
Regarding Claim 14, Kerr discloses wherein at least one first learning participant participates in recording of a conversational text belonging to a corresponding topic (Abstract performers for the scene's roles alternately speaking their respective lines).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing wherein the providing of the topic list comprises displaying topic information for each topic included in the topic list, and the topic information includes profile information of at least one first learning participant that participates in recording of a conversational text belonging to a corresponding topic.
Annaz teaches wherein the providing of the topic list comprises displaying topic information for each topic included in the topic list, and the topic information includes profile information of at least one first learning participant that participates in recording of a conversational text belonging to a corresponding topic ([0040] As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the category dictionary mode provides entries grouped in specified, narrowed-down scope. Such as topic, semantic field, communicative function, or other principles of selection for presenting, studying and learning a vocabulary (topic information for each topic), [0058] As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300 (profile information of at least one learning participant)).
Regarding Claim 15, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing wherein the topic information includes at least one of an object related to the corresponding topic, a number indicating a total of conversational texts belonging to the corresponding topic, and a number indicating a total of first learning participants that participate in recording of the conversational text belonging to the corresponding topic.
Annaz teaches wherein the topic information includes at least one of an object related to the corresponding topic ([0034] The database 905 is arranged so that when Country 410 is selected and Food 415 (topic information) is selected, the scope of searches required to be performed by processor 900 is limited to items related to foods that may be found in a country, such as the selected Country 410, [0035] As further illustrated in FIG.4, the relations can be restricted to Fruit 420 (an object related to the corresponding topic), then Winter 440 for fruits that are available in the winter (an object related to the corresponding topic), or Summer 425 for fruits that are available in the Summer. The same relational targeting of phrase lookups may be applied to other attributes of Food 415, such as Vegetable 430, and the like).
Regarding Claim 17, Kerr discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the conversation learning service method of claim 1 on a computer device ([0010] By using a simple personal computer (or similar computing device, e.g., a game console, smartphone or tablet computer) to make audio-only and/or audiovisual takes that can be uploaded to an Internet site, a huge worldwide audience (e.g., the employees of a large multinational corporation) is within reach).
Regarding Claim 18, Kerr discloses a computer device comprising: at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions recorded in a memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute:
displaying a first text on a first display screen of a first electronic device ([0010] By using a simple personal computer (or similar computing device, e.g., a game console, smartphone or tablet computer) to make audio-only and/or audiovisual takes that can be uploaded to an Internet site, a huge worldwide audience (e.g., the employees of a large multinational corporation) is within reach);
providing a first role interface on the first display screen to enable a first learning participant to record an audio utterance by the first learning participant of the first text displayed on the first display screen using the first role interface ([0063] FIG. 5 shows the Practice screen (first role interface) for a particular scenario (“My box is not working”) that had been previously assigned to the trainee user… Two Practice buttons are also provided. The first button allows the user to practice with a script; the second button allows unscripted practice, [0065] …then to zero seconds, at which time the Record screen of FIG. 9 appears. The text of the customer role appears and progress bar that grows in the direction of the arrow as the customer role is heard. This allows the user-trainee to prepare for his or her forthcoming performance… The user script is displayed and a progress bar paces the user in speaking the role, [0066] In one embodiment, the system alternately plays the customer part(s) and the trainee part(s) sequentially to repro-duce the entire scenario); and
providing a second role interface in a role-playing format on a second display screen of a second learner, the role-playing format displaying a conversational text including a first sentence corresponding to the first pronunciation content corresponding to the sentences of the first learning participant and a second sentence displayed to be read and uttered by the second learning participant following a playback of an audio of the first sentence uttered by the first learning participant ([0007] The instant invention enables a user to perform a first role from a scripted scenario and record his or her performance while listening to and/or watching a take of a second role from the scenario's script (implies a second role interface – second participant had to be able to record their portion of the script), [0008] the takes of different roles within a scenario may be combined with one another, so as to form a "scene," wherein the scene's constituent takes appear to have been recorded at the same time even though these takes have been recorded asynchronously and remotely (implies an interface for each participant), [0013] These defined time frames allow any user's take to be combinable with any take of another role in the script, such that, for example, performances of role A's and B's respective lines, when played, do not overlap in contravention of the script, so as to create a scene wherein the user's role A performance is seemingly performed together with role B’s recorded performance, [0014] The take of role B may be either prerecorded (second role interface for recording the pronunciation content)).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing registering the audio uttered by the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region; and registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learninq participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface.
Annaz teaches registering the audio uttered by the first learning participant as first pronunciation content in a first accent that represents the first learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region ([0025] The visual pronunciation dictionary 105 utilizes only native speakers having the capability to deliver a fluent, phonologically and syntactically complete form of the language to be recorded in the video presentation, [0034] Country 410 represents a country of the target language to be searched, [0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like); and
registering an audio uttered by the second learning participant as a second pronunciation content in a second accent that represents the second learning participant's country of origin, ethnicity, or region, using the second role interface ([0025] The visual pronunciation dictionary 105 utilizes only native speakers having the capability to deliver a fluent, phonologically and syntactically complete form of the language to be recorded in the video presentation, [0034] Country 410 represents a country of the target language to be searched (country of origin), [0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like).
Regarding Claim 19, Kerr discloses wherein the conversational text is on a specific topic selected by the second learning participant in the role-playing format ([0009] The company trainer establishes the curriculum in the form of scenarios that lay out particular interactions with customers. The trainer instructs the trainee what to say and how to say it by providing the scripts for, e.g., a customer complaint and the proper way the trainee should respond, [0016] This juxtaposition capability can be also used for evaluating rehearsals and auditions (e.g., for a movie or theater role), for evaluating an interviewee for a job (e.g., for a customer service position), for evaluating a current employee's communication skills, for evaluating a person's foreign language skills… As employees advance, they can be assigned the next phase in course work. Scenarios can also be grouped into Practice Sets by theme (specific topic)—for example, if a trainer wants the trainee to focus on the First Call with a Customer—his can be setup as a Practice Set and include multiple scenarios, [0026] For example, a beginning student may be given a full script to practice a basic conversational scenario in a foreign language (specific topic), [0061] A “ SCENARIOS ” button (lower right) shows the number of scenarios currently assigned to the user; selecting that button takes the user to a listing of all the assigned scenarios on the “Scenarios” screen, which is shown in FIG. 4B. FIG. 4A shows Practice Sets, [0071] The trainer creates both sides of the scenario, i.e., both the customer's lines and the customer service representative's (trainee's) lines (conversational text)).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing using pronunciation content in a specific accent selected by the second learning participant.
Annaz teaches using pronunciation content in a specific accent selected by the second learning participant ([0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations, based on different dialects and accents, gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like).
Regarding Claim 20, Kerr discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to provide the first role interface for playing back the first pronunciation content and the second role interface for playing back the second pronunciation content with respect to the first sentence and second sentence that are sequentially displayed ([0008] the takes of different roles within a scenario may be combined with one another, so as to form a "scene," wherein the scene's constituent takes appear to have been recorded at the same time even though these takes have been recorded asynchronously and remotely (playing back the second pronunciation content with respect to the first sentence and second sentence that are sequentially displayed), [0018] The scenario's constituent role A take can be switched out (interchanged) with any other take of role A without modifying any of the following: (1) either role A take (first pronunciation content) or (2) the scenario's constituent role B take (second pronunciation content). Moreover, without modifying any of the aforesaid, the newly interchanged take would also be juxtaposable with the scenario's constituent role B take, or with any other subsequent take of role B).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing playing back the first pronunciation content in the first accent and the second pronunciation content in the second accent different from the first accent.
Annaz teaches disclosing playing back the first pronunciation content in the first accent and the second pronunciation content in the second accent different from the first accent ([0025] The visual pronunciation dictionary 105 utilizes only native speakers having the capability to deliver a fluent, phonologically and syntactically complete form of the language to be recorded in the video presentation, [0034] Country 410 represents a country of the target language to be searched, [0058] Multimedia recordings of the same items can be provided with alternative pronunciations (pronunciations indicates at least a first and second), based on different dialects and accents (indicates at least a first and a second, and they must be different otherwise it would be the same “accent”), gender, or age of the speaker. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, a speaker select icon 155 is provided to open a gender, age selection menu 300… It is within the scope of the VPD 105 to provide similar selection menus for regional dialects, accents, and the like).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (US 2019/0198011 A1), in view of Annaz et al. (US 2007/0255570 A1), and in further view of Handal et al. (US 2003/0182111 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kerr discloses wherein the second role interface includes an interface for setting the uttered audio by the second learning participant ([0063] This screen (an interface) can be reached by selecting either the “New scenario” lead or the “SCENARIOS” button and selecting from the resulting scenario list (setting uttered audio) this particular scenario).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing a tone of emotion for the uttered audio.
Handal teaches a tone of emotion for the uttered audio ([0105] In contrast, the present invention uses what may regarded as multiple databases in performing the voice recognition task associated with recognition… identification and perfection of emotional energy, the Lessac energies, or the like, [0106] This in turn allows for the training of an individual to speak (uttered audio) with a particular emotional content or Lessac energy (tone of emotion), or the like, which characteristics may be referred to generally as the “color of the speech).
Kerr and Handal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of training or improving communication skills. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the conversation learning techniques, as disclosed by Kerr, further including wherein the second role interface includes an interface for setting a tone of emotion for the uttered audio by the second learning participant as taught by Handal for the purpose of allowing an individual to speak with a particular emotional content, which characteristics may be generally referred to as, the “color” of the speech (Handal, [0106]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (US 2019/0198011 A1), in view of Annaz et al. (US 2007/0255570 A1), and in further view of Raison et al. (US 2017/0293834 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kerr discloses wherein the second role interface includes an interface for inputting a sentence different from the second sentence included in the conversational text, and the conversation learning service method further comprises: adding the different sentence to a conversation tree that includes a new conversational text (Fig. 21 adding sentences to conversational text after creating a new conversational text, [0071] FIG. 21 shows a “New Scenario” screen used by the trainer to create a new scenario. This screen allows the trainer to enter a script one line at a time. The trainer creates both sides of the scenario, i.e., both the customer's lines and the customer service representative's (trainee's) lines).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing adding the different sentence to a conversation tree that includes the conversational text and a new conversational text.
Raison teaches adding the different sentence to a conversation tree that includes the conversational text and a new conversational text ([0075] The developer console may include an add branch control, to add a branch where the example messaging conversation diverges based on a user message, [0100] A branching example user-to-bot interaction comprises one or more branches. Traversing the branching example user-to-bot interaction may comprise randomly selecting an outcome of each of the one or more branches. This process of traversing a branching example user-to-bot interaction by randomly selecting an outcome is performed a plurality of times, [0225] wherein one or more of the one or more quick reply prompts is associated with one or more branches for a branching example user-to-bot interaction).
Kerr and Raison are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of responding to user outputs whether through text or verbal communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the conversation learning techniques, as disclosed by Kerr, further including adding the different sentence to a conversation tree that includes the conversational text and a new conversational text as taught by Raison for the purpose of adding in conversation/message branch options with quick replies or adding in options to catch cases where none of the branch responses match user content/texts (Raison, [0077]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (US 2019/0198011 A1), in view of Annaz et al. (US 2007/0255570 A1), and in further view of Chaudhri et al. (US 2017/0336958 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing wherein the providing of the role-playing format further comprises sequentially displaying, the first sentence after a playback of the first sentence and the second sentence after the uttered audio of the second sentence is completed ([0071] FIG. 21 shows a “New Scenario” screen used by the trainer to create a new scenario. This screen allows the trainer to enter a script one line at a time. The trainer creates both sides of the scenario, i.e., both the customer's lines and the customer service representative's (trainee's) lines).
Chaudhri teaches wherein the providing of the role-playing format further comprises sequentially displaying, as message speech bubbles on the second display screen, the first sentence after a playback of the first sentence and the second sentence after the uttered audio of the second sentence is completed (Figs. 5A-5DQ Messages are displayed in message speech bubbles, [0391] The impact selection interface 5110, FIG. 5AA, includes a “bubble” affordance 5114 for displaying a selecting message region impact effect options, and a “screen” affordance 5116 for selecting full screen impact effect options, [0418] As used herein, a message region is a message region, bubble, platter, or other container for a message in a conversation transcript of a messaging session).
Kerr and Chaudhri are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of graphical user interfaces for messaging or conversational texts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the conversation learning techniques, as disclosed by Kerr, further including wherein the providing of the role-playing format further comprises sequentially displaying, as message speech bubbles on the second display screen, the first sentence after a playback of the first sentence and the second sentence after the uttered audio of the second sentence is completed as taught by Chaudhri for the purpose of having a containter for a message in a conversation transcript or messaging session (Chaudhri, [0418]).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (US 2019/0198011 A1), in view of Annaz et al. (US 2007/0255570 A1), and in further view of Isgar (US 2021/0049922 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing wherein the providing of the conversational text in the role-playing format comprises providing a list of first learning participants selectable as a role-playing opponent based on at least one of a real-time access status and a relationship with the second learning participant.
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing providing a list of first learning participants selectable as a role-playing opponent based on at least one of a real-time access status and a relationship with the second learning participant.
Isgar teaches providing a list of first learning participants selectable as a role-playing opponent based on at least one of a real-time access status and a relationship with the second learning participant ([0005] the server places the language speaker in an available for chatting condition… end for display on the user computing device a list of language speakers that are in the available for chatting condition and have a language identifier that corresponds to the at least one language identifier in the user information; receive a signal from the user computing device requesting a chat with a language speaker selected from the list of language speakers; and, in response to receiving the request for a chat, establish a connection between the selected language speaker and the user, the connection being established through the server, [0019] wherein the server places the language speaker in an available for chatting condition (access status)… wherein the server retrieves the language speaker information that is in the available for chatting condition and has a language identifier that corresponds the at least one language identifier in the user information; send for display on the user computing device a list of language speakers that are in the available for chatting condition and have a language identifier that corresponds to the at least one language identifier in the user information; [0024] This allows the language speaker, operating as a coach, to give real-time feedback on the user's speaking by such things as helping the user correctly say a word or phrase… Further still, the user may select available conversational speakers or conversationalists also shown in FIG. 4 (real-time access status)).
Kerr and Isgar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of conversational chat systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the conversation learning techniques, as disclosed by Kerr, further including providing a list of first learning participants selectable as a role-playing opponent based on at least one of a real-time access status and a relationship with the second learning participant as taught by Isgar for the purpose of allowing a user to select a language speaker with a desired rating and also having the ability corresponding to the user's level of speaking that language (Isgar, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kerr discloses wherein the topic information includes information of the second learning participant ([0008] By making all the performances juxtaposable, one reviewer can evaluate a large number of trainee performances all against, for example, the same customer, so that everyone is evaluated identically, [0012] After the take is uploaded, a trainer and/or even the user's peers can access the user's take (information of the learning participant) to evaluate and/or learn from it).
However, Kerr is not relied upon disclosing wherein the topic information includes history information of the second learning participant on the conversational text belonging to the corresponding topic.
Isgar teaches wherein the topic information includes history information of the second learning participant on the conversational text belonging to the corresponding topic ([0028] In such embodiments, the server may execute program code to recognize words, sentence structure and identify error in the user's speaking of a particular language. Additionally, this information may be automatically stored, and the server may learn from past stored (historical) data to expand the ability to objectively analyze a conversation and develop a report of the same).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frolovichev et al. (US 2022/0159419 A1) teaches systems and methods for streaming of audio communications (Abstract).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on 571-270-1344. 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.
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 The combination of the “two role interface” disclosed by Kerr and “playing back the pronunciation content in an accent” as taught by Annaz would render playing back pronunciation content in a first accent and playing back pronunciation content in a second accent obvious, because playing back content would correspond to each speaker. Every person capable of speaking inherently has an accent, and therefore, every accent is inherently different. The claim limitation of, “wherein the providing of the conversational text in the role-playing format comprises providing the first role user interface for playing back pronunciation content in the first accent and the second role user interface for playing back pronunciation content in the second accent different from the first accent with respect to sentences that are sequentially given in the sentence order of the conversational text”, is taught by the combination of Kerr and Annaz.
Prosecution Insights