DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 remain pending in the application and claims 11-20 are previously withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US PGPub 20190088151), hereinafter referred to as Chen in view of Wilson et al. (US PGPub 20220068296), and further in view of Tommy et al. (US PGPub 20210125389), hereinafter referred to as Tommy.
With regard to claim 1, Chen teaches a computer implemented method for interactively teaching or improving language skills (Abstract; Paragraphs 0020, 0051; methods performed by a computing system), the method comprising:
prompting, by a bot (Paragraph 0029; “conversational virtual agent”), an input from a user of a language demonstration that describes the selected activity of the user and that has multiple parts (Paragraphs 00024, 0050 teaches the system/agent can ask the user a question about an image/activity that the user can respond (language demonstration) to with a speech response that the system evaluates based on several factors including grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary wherein the system is designed for conversational interactions wherein a conversation requires multiple interactions/responses (multiple parts));
verifying an integrity of the input, using conversational artificial intelligence algorithm, by recognizing key verbs and checking for errors, and providing at least one of a score measuring a language skill of the input (Paragraphs 0024, 0050 teaches the system uses an automated speech assessment and conversational agent using natural language programming (AI algorithm) to analyze, evaluate, and score the responses including analyzing vocabulary, syntax, and pronunciation).
Chen may not explicitly teach by generating a visually connected sequence of images; prompting, by a bot or a processor, a user input of a selection of a persona and of an activity previously performed by the user; applying by the processor an AI algorithm on the user input to generate in real-time an image of a character or an object matching, in activity or pose, the selected persona and activity; applying the AI algorithm on each part of the language demonstration and the recognized key verbs, to generate in real-time a plurality of images, the plurality of images comprises newly generated images which take into consideration earlier steps of the language demonstration and user input; wherein the multiple parts comprise sequential user responses that collectively build a narrative, each part influencing subsequent prompts and the generated images so as to maintain contextual and narrative continuity, and wherein the plurality of images generated for each part are selected and integrated with images generated for one or more earlier parts such that the resulting visually connected sequence depicts a coherent storyline consistent with the user’s cumulative selections; and generating from the plurality of newly generated images by the AI algorithm a visually connected sequence of images in the format of a comic book, animated clips, cartoons, newspaper, short video clips, or any combinations thereof. However, Wilson teaches a system and method for generating in real-time conversational image representations using generative adversarial network (GAN) (AI Algorithm) based on a conversation between users including a series of questions and answers (multiple parts) including generating a user avatar based on user preferences (selections) and the generated images being based on user utterances including conversations where the system uses natural language processing to identify the nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and verbs in the utterance to match the words to the objects used for the image generation wherein the images are further generated based on user feedback (selection/approval of images) in order to correct the images and adjust the model for future image generation and wherein images can be in the form of a comic (series of images) forming a cohesive, unified storyline thereby taking into consideration earlier panels/images and the user’s entire utterance/input (Paragraphs 0021-0023, 0027-0030, 0033, 0037, 0039, 0041-0042).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen to incorporate the teachings of Wilson by using the technique of Wilson of generating images based on conversational utterances to improve the similar system and method of Chen using natural language processing in the same way by providing images of the conversations of Chen between the user and agent, as, while the inventions are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to combine the references in order to improve the assessment and customized content of Chen as both references are computing methods applied to conversational analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chen by coding the automated speech assessment and conversational agent/natural language processing to further analyze the conversation between the user and virtual agent in order to produce image representations of the conversation based on user preferences and selections including user feedback in order to generate images based on a user avatar and conversation topic/activity and improve future image generation including generating the images using a GAN model/algorithm. Upon such modification, the method and system of Chen would include by generating a visually connected sequence of images; the language demonstration that has multiple parts; prompting, by a bot or a processor, a user input of a selection of a persona and of an activity previously performed by the user; applying by the processor an AI algorithm on the user input to generate in real-time an image of a character or an object matching, in activity or pose, the selected persona and activity; applying the AI algorithm on each part of the language demonstration and the recognized key verbs, to generate in real-time a plurality of images, the plurality of images comprises newly generated images which take into consideration earlier steps of the language demonstration and user input; wherein the multiple parts comprise sequential user responses that collectively build a narrative; and generating from the plurality of newly generated images by the AI algorithm a visually connected sequence of images in the format of a comic book. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Wilson with Chen’s system and method in order to improve the customized content of Chen and improving user communication and comprehension (Wilson Paragraph 0042).
Chen in view of Wilson may not explicitly teach each part influencing subsequent prompts and the generated images so as to maintain contextual and narrative continuity, and wherein the plurality of images generated for each part are selected and integrated with images generated for one or more earlier parts such that the resulting visually connected sequence depicts a coherent storyline consistent with the user’s cumulative selections. However, Tommy teaches a system and method for creating a cartoon comic strip using one or more conversation-based text or speech files wherein the images include scenes and context based on the input file and previous images thereby creating continuity between the images (Abstract; Paragraphs 0017, 0031-0032, 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chen in view of Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Tommy by using the technique of Tommy of generating the images based on conversational resources and generating the images in part based on the context and previous scenes/background of previous images to improve the similar system and method of Chen in view of Wilson using natural language processing in the same way by providing images of the conversations of Chen between the user and agent, as, while the inventions are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to combine the references in order to improve the image generation of Chen in view of Wilson as the references are computing methods applied to conversational analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Chen in view of Wilson by coding the automated speech assessment and conversational agent/natural language processing to further generate the images for the comic strip based on the previous images and the entirety of the conversation/storyline of the conversation such that the images are connected in order to have continuity and follow the storyline of the conversation. Further the Examiner notes that the term influencing is generic and broad such that merely having a plurality of questions and answers as taught by Chen will influence subsequent questions and answers of a conversation which would be included in the “continuity” as taught by Tommy. Upon such modification, the method and system of Chen in view of Wilson would include each part influencing subsequent prompts and the generated images so as to maintain contextual and narrative continuity, and wherein the plurality of images generated for each part are selected and integrated with images generated for one or more earlier parts such that the resulting visually connected sequence depicts a coherent storyline consistent with the user’s cumulative selections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Tommy with Chen in view of Wilson’s system and method in order to improve the customized content of Chen and improving image generation and continuity in order to provide more comprehensive storylines/comic strips.
With regard to claim 2, Chen further teaches the conversation can be customized (Paragraphs 0021, 0029) and wherein the prompting includes at least two of the following: what the user did (Paragraph 0050 teaches the question can include what a subject is doing), but may not explicitly teach the prompting includes: where the user was, with whom the user interacted, what happened to the user and how the user felt. However, Wilson further teaches the system can identify users (whom), sentiment (how the user felt), what the user was doing, and location (where) as part of the conversation (Paragraph 0023; Figure 3, User utterance 302). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Wilson. Upon modification, the method and system of Chen would include wherein the prompting includes at least two of the following: where the user was, with whom the user interacted, what happened to the user and how the user felt.
With regard to claim 3, Chen may not explicitly teach wherein the language demonstration is a story. However, Wilson further teaches the conversation can be in the form of a storyline (Paragraphs 0037, 0041). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Wilson. Upon modification, the method and system of Chen would include wherein the language demonstration is a story.
With regard to claim 4, Chen further teaches wherein the language demonstration is in the form of audio, text, graphic images, image, or ay combinations thereof (Paragraphs 0023, 0050).
With regard to claim 5, Chen further teaches further comprising applying the artificial intelligence algorithm to score the user's input in a particular language at each of a plurality of stages of the input (Paragraphs 0021, 0024).
With regard to claim 6, Chen may not explicitly teach wherein the images are in a comic book format. However, Wilson further teaches the generated images can be in the form of a comic strip/book (Paragraph 0037). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen with the teachings of Wilson. Upon modification, the method and system of Chen would include wherein the images are in a comic book format.
With regard to claim 8, Chen further teaches wherein the prompting by the bot is by a visual avatar (Paragraph 0029 teaches the conversational virtual agent can be depicted as a robot).
With regard to claim 9, Chen, as modified, further teaches a system (Paragraphs 0037, 0051; “computing system”) for teaching language skills using an interactive process that generates a visually connected sequence of images (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above), the system comprising a processor of a processing unit configured to execute (Paragraphs 0037-0038) the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 10, Chen, as modified, further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor executable instructions on a computing device (Paragraph 0041; “non-transitory computer-readable storage media”), when executed by a processor (Paragraphs 0038, 0041), the processor executable instructions causing the processor to perform (Paragraphs 0038, 0041) the method of claim 1 (see prior art rejection of claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed December 3, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments primarily address the references individually with passing reference to the combination of references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s substantiative arguments are primarily direct to the Tommy reference, but Examiner notes that Applicant’s summary of the references is not accurate. Specifically, Applicant states that Chen’s multiple factors do not constitute multiple parts, but the determination is based in part on Chen teaching conversation interactions and the specific limitation of the multiple parts being sequential responses is taught by Wilson. With regards to Applicant’s primary arguments directed to the Tommy reference, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s summary of the teachings of Tommy as Tommy does not require processing “an entire conversation transcript at once” as Tommy explicitly states the generation can be based off of one or more conversations and the process can be performed dynamically and live (Tommy Paragraphs 0017, 0032, 0037, 0049). Further, application of the teachings of Tommy to Chen in view of Wilson further teaches real-time/active generation as Wilson teaches auto generation during a conversation as discussed above. Applicant’s argument of user-guided integration and user selected images is not commensurate with the claim language as the claims merely state the plurality of images generated for each part are selected without specifying how the selection and integration occur. Further, the limitation is under the step of “applying the AI algorithm” such that it is reasonably interpreted as the AI algorithm selecting the images which is taught by Tommy which teaches machine based selection and the selection module as discussed above. Applicant further argues a difference between assessment and improvement which is not commensurate with the claim language as the claims do not provide specific details beyond “verifying an integrity of the input” and providing feedback and a score which are generic and broad and under their broadest reasonable interpretation are taught by Chen. Applicants assertion of Chen being insufficient to teach such assessment is not persuasive as such duplication of steps or effort, as with other limitations, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art per In re Harza. In response to applicant's argument that Chen and Wilson and Tommy is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, applying the teachings of Wilson and Tommy to Chen is pertinent to the particular problem and obvious to apply in order to improve Chen in the same way as discussed above. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, Applicant’ arguments are not persuasive. As such, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected. Examiner recommends Applicant reach out to schedule an Examiner interview to discuss the merits of the case and subsequent steps to progress prosecution.
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 CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715