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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Regarding outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant amended independent claims 1, 9 and 17 by adding new limitations. Applicant also added new dependent claims 21-25. Regarding to the amended claims / newly added claims, applicant argued (Remarks, pages 10-12) that the previously cited references fail to teach newly limitations to independent claims.
In response, the examiner notices that the original disclosure fails to provide a sufficient support for the newly added limitations (See more detailed explanations below under §112(a)). The newly added limitations also have ambiguous issues (See more detailed explanations below under §112(b)).
To expedite the prosecution, the examiner interprets the newly added limitations based on a best understanding to the disclosure. It appears the applicant intended to capture certain features related to a sequence of interactions between a virtual character and a person (Spec. page 14, a sequence of interactions between a virtual actor and a human illustrated in Fig. 6 to Fig. 9). After performing an update search, the examiner discovered several relevant prior art references.
Cohen (US PG Pub. 2008/0254424) discloses an interactive training system (Cohen, Abstract). During an interactive training session, an animated actor (corresponding to a claimed “a virtual respondent”) could interact with a trainee using text, audio and video (Cohen, [0060-0061]). Cohen further discloses the animated actor interacts with the trainee by presenting multiple choice questions and presenting different responses depending on user’s selection to multiple choice questions (Cohen, [0016], [0060], [0073], [0188], Fig. 3A – 3Y, Fig. 5A – 5V).
In the following rejection over prior references, the examiner combines the newly discovered reference to Cohen to reject amended / new claims. The arguments regarding previous rejection are considered. The augments are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combined teachings with a reference, necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In a response filed on 11/06/2025, applicant amended independent claims 1, 9 and 17 by adding new limitations. Applicant stated (Remarks, page 9): “Support for the amendments can be found in the application as filed, for example, on pages 5 and 7; and Figures 6-9.”.
After reviewing the original disclosure, the examiner could not find an adequate support for an added limitation: b) a different response than if a different response from the two or more responses was selected;
Based on a best understanding, the original disclosure illustrates a sequence of interactions between a virtual actor and a human (Spec. pages 14-29, Fig. 6-9). MPEP (2163 (I)(B)) requires newly added limitations have an adequate support by the original disclosure. In the amendment filed on 10/06/2025, the original disclosure does not provide a sufficient support for the newly added limitations. It appears the newly added limitations were based on some kinds of inference or reasoning from Fig. 6 to Fig. 9 (a sequence of interactions between a virtual actor and a person). The adequate support to the newly added limitations CANNOT be based on some kinds of inference or reasoning. Dependent claims include all limitations of their corresponding independent claims. All dependent claims are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
MPEP (2173.02) states that “During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude.”. “The Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim. Such claim construction during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court's determination. The lower threshold is applied because the patent record is in development and not fixed during examination”.
Applicant amended independent claims by adding a limitation: b) a different response than if a different response from the two or more responses was selected.
The above underlined limitation is ambiguous and confusing. First, it is unclear which response is a claimed “a different response”. Does the term refer to a response that is different from a claimed “a first response” or is different from a claimed “two or more responses”? Secondly, the above underlined limitation mentions TWICE “a different response”. Is the first mentioned “a different response” refer to the same response or a different response from the second mentioned “a different response”?
By reviewing the original disclosure, it appears that applicant uses the same term “a different response” to refer to various responses either from a virtual actor or from a human. It is very confusing by using the same term to refer to different responses from either virtual actor or from a human. Dependent claims include all limitations of their corresponding independent claims. All dependent claims are rejected.
In the following rejection over prior art references, the examiner interprets claimed features based on a best understanding in light of the disclosure. It appears the added limitations are related to features of a sequence interactions between a virtual actor and a human (See Fig. 6 to Fig. 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8-9, 16-17 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0015790, referred to as Lee) in view of Cohen (US PG Pub. 2008/0254424, referred to as Cohen), and further in view of Kritzinger et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0067552, referred to as Kritzinger).
Lee was a published patent application by the same inventors (1st, 2nd and 3rd inventors of the instant application). Lee was assigned to the same company (Allego Inc.). Lee discloses the same training system (Fig. 1 is the same drawing in the cited Lee reference and in the instant patent application). Lee discloses a system / a method that allows an employee to record a video presentation together with presentation slides (Fig. 6, note, each slide corresponds to a claimed “branching moments”). Lee further discloses uploading the recorded video presentation by making chunks of API calls ([0072], corresponding to a claimed “executable computer code”).
Cohen discloses an interactive training system (Cohen, Abstract). Cohen discloses an animated actor (corresponding to a claimed “a virtual respondent”) could interact with a trainee using text, audio and video (Cohen, [0060-0061]). Cohen further discloses the animated actor interacts with the trainee by presenting multiple choice questions and presenting different responses based on a user’s selection to the multiple-choice questions (Cohen, [0016], [0060], [0073], [0188], Fig. 3A – 3Y, Fig. 5A – 5V).
Kritzlinger discloses a learning management system (LMS) by modifying / tailoring training courses for a user ([0084-0085]). Kritzlinger further discloses storing the tailored courses as sharable content object reference model (SCORM) format ([0005-0007], [0064-0067]) with JSON codes ([0005], [0101]).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Lee discloses a method, a system and a computer program product (Lee, Fig. 1, [0005], a computer implemented system to improve employee performance by allowing an employee to upload a self-recorded video presentation), comprising:
receiving, by a computer, a text string having one or more branching moments, with the computer including a processor, memory, a non-transitory computer storage, and input/output devices (Lee, [0033], [0050], [0069], presentations with PowerPoint slides, each slide corresponds to a claimed “one or more branching moments”; For example, a slide has a title “Sales forecast for XYZ Corp.” (a claimed “a text string”));
processing, by the computer, the text string to recognize indications of the one or more branching moments given the text string ([0033], [0052-0053], text in slides, Fig. 6, #166. [0042-43], recognizing title, author or keywords of presentations, which is a claimed “indications of more or more branching moments”);
converting, by the computer, the processed text string and the indications of the one or more branching moments into executable computer code (Lee, [0045], converting to HTTP live streaming, [0072], call API to upload recorded video; Note, HTTP live streaming includes executable computer code);
receiving, by the computer, a response to a given one of the converted one or more branching moments from a predetermined set of responses (Lee, [0030], [0054-0055], [0060], receiving / recording vote-like feedback, comments including approval / disapproval);
generating, by the computer from the executable computer code and media elements for the response, a virtual respondent (Lee, [0069-0071], using recorded video with comments with training software, recorded video to show best examples / best practices for new hires; Fig. 2, #56; [0072], upload by using API calls); and
storing, by the computer, the executable computer code and the media elements as a file in the computer storage that represents the virtual respondent (Lee, [0034], [0059], [0062], store / search / retrieve training videos; [0072], API calls; [0045], HTTP streaming, which uses stored “executable computer code”).
Lee discloses an employee could record a video presentation together with PowerPoint slides. Lee further discloses uploading the recorded video presentation by calling chunks of API calls ([0072]). Lee does not disclose interactions between a virtual actor and a person. Based on a best understanding, the newly added limitations (filed on 11/06/2025) are related to features of a sequence interactions between a virtual actor and a human. A claimed “branching moment” is related to selecting a response from a multiple-choice question (claimed “two or more responses”).
Cohen discloses a video training system that allows a human (a trainee or a student) interacts with an animated actor (a virtual teacher or a virtual coach). Cohen discloses a sequence interaction between a human and the animated actor by selecting / answering multiple-choice questions (Cohen, [0647-0651], Fig. 3A – Fig. 3Y; [0653-0661], Fig. 5A to Fig. 5V).
Although Lee meets broadly recited limitation “converting … into executable computer code”, in light of the specification, the instant claims are related to generate e-learning files and stored as “Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM)” with HTML / JSON codes (see specification, pages 7-8). The examiner cites Kritzlinger to show an e-learning management system (LMS) by modifying / tailoring training courses ([0084-0085]). Kritzlinger further discloses storing the tailored courses as sharable content object reference model (SCORM) ([0005-0007], [0064-0067]). Kritzlinger further discloses using JSON, PHP, XML codes in the learning management system (LMS) ([0005], [0084], [0101]).
Lee, Cohen and Kritzlinger are related to training people / employees. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Lee’s teaching with Cohen’s teaching to include interactions between a virtual actor and a trainee by presenting multiple choice questions and selecting next training section based on user’s choice to the multiple-choice questions. It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Lee in view of Cohen’s teaching with Kritzlinger’s teaching to adapt / tailor training contents stored as a standard SCORM format that includes media contents and associated JSON codes. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to make SCORM compliant content more relevant to an individual user (Kritzlinger, [0002]).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Lee in view of Cohen and Kritzlinger further discloses:
processing the text string to recognize indications of the one or more branching moments given the text string comprises detecting, in the text string, the one or more branching moments (Lee, [0042-0043], Fig. 6, #166);
converting the processed text string comprises converting the processed text string and the indications of the one or more branching moments into JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) (Kritzlinger, [0005], [0101], training contents in JSON format); and
generating, using the JSON and the media elements, the virtual respondent comprises generating one or more files that reference the JSON and the media elements (Kritzlinger, [0005], [0065-0067], the recited limitations are related to generating SCORM compliant contents; Kritzlinger discloses tailoring / adapting training courses in a learning management system and stored the courses as SCORM compliant contents with JSON codes).
Regarding claims 21-25, Lee in view of Cohen and further discloses:
executing the executable computer code to visually and audibly render the second response at the one or more branching moments into computer generated video of the virtual actor (Cohen, Abstract, [0014], [0060-0061], interactive training using audio, video and text; Fig. 5A – Fig. 5V, a virtual actor interacts with a trainee, presenting multiple-choice questions, a trainee selects a response from the multiple-choice questions); and
sending the computer-generated video to a client device to cause the client device to present the computer-generated video of the virtual actor at the one or more branching moments (Cohen, Abstract, [0014], [0060-0061], interactive training using audio, video and text; Fig. 5A – Fig. 5V, a virtual actor interacts with a trainee, presenting multiple-choice questions, a trainee selects one response).
Claims 2, 6-7, 10, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cohen and Kritzinger and further in view of Chen et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0129556, referred to as Chen).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Lee in view of Cohen and Kritzlinger discloses recording training videos and showing training videos on client devices (Lee, [0005], [0028], Fig. 8 / Fig. 9). Lee in view of Cohen Kritzlinger does not explicitly describe “computer generated audio”.
Chen discloses many details of implementing a virtual assistant including using text-to-speech to convert text into speech (Chen, [0130], Fig. 3, #390).
Lee in view of Cohen and Kritzlinger and Chen are related to presenting information to a human. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee in view of Kritzlinger’s teaching with Chen’s teaching to output audio using a TTS engine for converting text into audio. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because it is more convenient to listen to a response than reading text. In addition, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Lee in view of Cohen, Kritzlinger and Chen further discloses: receiving an audio signal encoding speech from a participant operating a client device; and converting the received audio signal into the text string (Chen, [0075], Fig. 2, #208a / #208b).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lee in view of Cohen, Kritzlinger and Chen further discloses: the client device comprises a separate device from the computer (Lee, Fig. 1).
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Cohen and Kritzinger and further in view of Umrigar et al. (US PG Pub. 2008/0206730, referred to as Umrigar).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Lee in view of Cohen Kritzinger does not disclose pausing video of the virtual respondent; causing choice buttons, for the given one of the converted one or more branching moments, to be rendered in juxtaposition to the paused video of the virtual respondent; and receiving input indicating selection of one of the choice buttons which selection indicates the response.
Umrigar discloses showing a training video and allows a user to pause the video and selecting a choice as illustrated in Fig. 8C (duplicated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
1222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee in view of Cohen, Kritzlinger and Umrigar are related to showing training videos. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Lee in view of Kritzlinger’s teaching with Umrigar’s teaching to allow a user pause the video and select a response. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because it is necessary to pause the video and allowing a viewer to select a response. In addition, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. “A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 Jialong He, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5359. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00AM – 4:30PM, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Desir can be reached on (571) 272-7799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIALONG HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659