DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claims 3, 6, 10, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 5 recites “the game play”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and appears as though it should recite “a game play”.
Claim 6 line 3 recites “the game play” and “the video game”. These limitations lack antecedent basis and appear as though they should recite “a game play” and “a video game”, respectively.
Claim 10 line 9 recites “the game play”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and appears as though it should recite “a game play”.
Claim 14 line 4 recites “the game play” and “the video game”. These limitations lack antecedent basis and appear as though they should recite “a game play” and “a video game”, respectively.
Claim 19 line 3 recites “the game play” and “the video game”. These limitations lack antecedent basis and appear as though they should recite “a game play” and “a video game”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez-Rua et al. (US 2022/0269335 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Perez-Rua discloses a method, comprising (Paragraph 0004 and Paragraphs 0059-0072):
capturing a deformed gesture performed by a communicator, wherein the deformed gesture corresponds to a defined gesture that is intended by the communicator (Paragraph 0010 and Paragraph 0016 lines 1-3: capturing image data of a user performing a gesture);
providing the deformed gesture that is captured to an artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to classify a predicted gesture corresponding to deformed gesture (Paragraph 0010, Paragraph 0014, and Paragraph 0016 lines 3-4: user emotion corresponding to gesture is predicted using machine-learning model);
performing an action based on the predicted gesture (Paragraph 0016 lines 5-6, Paragraph 0015 lines 1-6, and Paragraph 0057 lines 1-2: the predicted emotion corresponding to the gesture is output);
capturing at least one multimodal cue to verify the predicted gesture (Paragraph 0016 lines 6-7: request for user to verify the accuracy, where the user provides a response to the request);
determining that the predicted gesture is incorrect based on the at least one multimodal cue that is captured (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-2: verification response states it is incorrect);
providing feedback to the AI model indicating that the predicted gesture is incorrect for training the AI model, wherein the AI model is updated based on the feedback (Paragraph 0016 lines 7-9 and Paragraph 0017: user input is provided for updating the machine learning model);
and classifying an updated predicted gesture corresponding to the deformed gesture using the AI model that is updated (Paragraph 0008 lines 12-15, Paragraph 0014 and Paragraph 0017: the machine learning model is updated (trained) and used for detecting gestures and corresponding emotions in image data).
In regard to claim 2, Perez-Rua discloses wherein the capturing a deformed gesture includes: tracking movement of a part of the communicator or movement of a hand-held controller (Paragraph 0010: facial expressions and hand/body gestures).
In regard to claim 4, Perez-Rua discloses wherein the determining that the predicted gesture is incorrect based on the at least one multimodal cue that is captured includes: directly querying the communicator whether or not the predicted gesture is correct (Paragraph 0016 lines 6-7: request for user to verify).
In regard to claim 6, Perez-Rua discloses wherein the capturing the at least one multimodal cue to verify the predicted gesture includes: capturing game state of the game play of the video game; determining a game context of the game play based on the game state; and determining that the predicted gesture is not consistent with the game context (Paragraph 0015 lines 1-6 , Paragraph 0016, and Paragraph 0057: calibration is performed during human computer interaction, where the human computer interaction can be playing a game and determining a user emotion with respect to game context in response to user gestures, where during calibration the determined emotion with respect to the game context may be identified as incorrect by the user during the game play).
In regard to claims 10, 11, and 14, medium claims 10, 11, and 14 correspond generally to method claims 1, 2, and 6, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 16, 17, and 19, system claims 16, 17, and 19 correspond generally to method claims 1, 2, and 6, respectively, and recite similar features in system form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
5. Claim(s) 3, 5, 12, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez-Rua et al. (US 2022/0269335 A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0298946 A1).
In regard to claim 3, while Perez-Rua teaches determining that the predicted gesture is incorrect based on the at least one multimodal cue to determine that the communicator is unsatisfied with the action that is performed and further teaches the game play (Paragraph 0057 lines 1-2), they fail to show the inferring that the predicted gesture is incorrect by analyzing the at least one multimodal cue, as recited in the claims. Wang teaches predicting similar to that of Perez-Rua. In addition, Wang further teaches
inferring a prediction is incorrect by analyzing multimodal cues to determine a communicator is unsatisfied with the prediction (Paragraph 0019 and Paragraphs 0045-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Perez-Rua and Wang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determining that the predicted gesture is incorrect based on the at least one multimodal cue to determine that the communicator is unsatisfied with the action that is performed and the game play taught by Perez-Rua to include the inferring a prediction is incorrect by analyzing multimodal cues to determine a communicator is unsatisfied with the prediction of Wang, in order to obtain wherein the determining that the predicted gesture is incorrect based on the at least one multimodal cue that is captured includes: inferring that the predicted gesture is incorrect by analyzing the at least one multimodal cue to determine that the communicator is unsatisfied with the action that is performed within the game play. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as real-time feedback to a given predictive model without requiring time-consuming explicit user confirmation would have been obtained, as suggested by Wang (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-8 and Paragraph 0018 lines 9-11).
In regard to claim 5, while Perez-Rua teaches capturing at least one multimodal cue, they fail to show the receiving a plurality of multimodal cues from a plurality of tracking devices configured to monitor the communicator or an environment surrounding the communicator, as recited in the claims. Wang teaches predicting similar to that of Perez-Rua. In addition, Wang further teaches
receiving a plurality of multimodal cues from a plurality of tracking devices configured to monitor the communicator to determine the communicator is unsatisfied with the prediction (Paragraph 0019 and Paragraphs 0045-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Perez-Rua and Wang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capturing at least one multimodal cue taught by Perez-Rua to include the receiving a plurality of multimodal cues from a plurality of tracking devices configured to monitor the communicator to determine the communicator is unsatisfied with the prediction of Wang, in order to obtain wherein the capturing the at least one multimodal cue includes: receiving a plurality of multimodal cues from a plurality of tracking devices configured to monitor the communicator or an environment surrounding the communicator. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as real-time feedback to a given predictive model without requiring time-consuming explicit user confirmation would have been obtained, as suggested by Wang (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-8 and Paragraph 0018 lines 9-11).
In regard to claims 12 and 13, medium claims 12 and 13 correspond generally to method claims 3 and 5, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 18, system claim 18 corresponds generally to method claim 3 and recites similar features in system form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 7-9, 15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claims 7, 8, 15, and 20, the prior art of record fails to disclose “wherein the providing feedback to the AI model includes: determining a constraint that is configured to constrain a gesture space for fully performing the defined gesture; and reshaping the gesture space that is constrained based on the constraint, such that the deformed gesture is reshaped based on the gesture space that is constrained and reshaped, wherein the deformed gesture that is reshaped matches the defined gesture for classification by the AI model” as recited in claim 7 and similarly recited in claims 15 and 20, in combination with the other elements recited.
Cited prior art reference Brickner (US 2014/0267004 A1) discusses adjusting a gesture space, see at least the abstract, but fails to disclose the specifics identified above in combination with the other elements recited.
In regard to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose “wherein the providing feedback to the AI model includes: determining a constraint that is configured to constrain a gesture space for fully performing the defined gesture; and reshaping the gesture space based on the constraint, such that the defined gesture is reshaped based on the gesture space that is reshaped, wherein the deformed gesture matches the defined gesture that is reshaped for classification by the AI model” as recited in claim 9, in combination with the other elements recited.
Cited prior art reference Brickner (US 2014/0267004 A1) discusses adjusting a gesture space, see at least the abstract, but fails to disclose the specifics identified above in combination with the other elements recited.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walker et al. (WO 2024/072465 A1), see at least Paragraphs 0009-0010.
Stewart et al. (US 2024/0169696 A1), see at least Paragraph 0055.
Chencinski et al. (US 2023/0384866 A1), see at least Paragraph 0032, Paragraph 0080, Paragraph 0083, and Paragraphs 0091-0093.
Han et al. (US 2018/0005625 A1), see at least Fig. 7.
Scavezze et al. (US 2015/0261318 A1), see at least Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0024-0026.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
9. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179