Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection below.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 13-15, 19, 21-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO (US 2020/0104670 A1) in view of Caballero (US 2020/0202579 A1).
1. SEO discloses a method, comprising:
receiving an input from a user for an interaction application during execution of the interaction application (101: Fig. 1), [0045];
receiving a plurality of cues from a plurality of trackers, wherein each tracker of the plurality of trackers is configured to generate a respective cue using artificial intelligence (Al) (receiving and processing a plurality of cues for emotion recognition), (110: Fig. 1), [0144], [0148];
providing the plurality of cues to an Al model that is configured to receive input including one or more cues and to generate output including a classification of at least one emotion based on the one or more cues (providing the cues/predicted values from the neural network trackers to an AI model (weight model) configured to classify emotions, generating a first predicted emotion via fusion/voting), (110: Fig. 1), [0053], [0083], [0091];
generating initial content for the interaction application in response to the input from the user (generates content (e.g., recommended media) in response to user input/data during operation); obtaining, as output from the Al model, a predicted emotion of the user and determining, based on the predicted emotion of the user, a modification to be made to the initial content (determining a modification to content (e.g., recommending/adapting audio/video/image outputs) generated by the interaction application in response to the input, based on the predicted emotion), [0152]-[0153], [0161];
SEO does not expressly disclose the modification including an overlay; generating the overlay; and applying the overlay to the initial content to generate modified content for the interaction application. Caballero disclose the modification including an overlay; generating the overlay; and applying the overlay to the initial content to generate modified content for the interaction application (“The dynamic mask may be automatically selected from a set of masks … based on one or more emotions identified in the image or video.” “A dynamic mask may be applied to an image or video by, for example, rendering graphical features generated according to the mask on or near the object in the video. The graphical features may be rendered in the output images superimposed on or in association with the object.” “The input images may be frames of an input video, and the output images may be frames of an output video.” The overlay (dynamic mask) is generated via mask effects/instructions and applied by incorporating graphical features into the original media), [0006], [0042], [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify SEO’s multimodal AI emotion-prediction system (which already determines emotion-based modifications to device output/content) by incorporating Caballero’s dynamic-mask overlay technique. Both references address real-time, emotion-driven enhancement of user-facing media/content on electronic devices. Caballero’s explicit emotion-to-dynamic-mask mapping and frame-by-frame superimposition provide a predictable, efficient, and visually rich implementation of the “modification” step already contemplated by SEO, yielding improved user expressiveness and engagement with no unexpected results.
5. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: verifying inaccuracy of the predicted emotion; and providing feedback to the Al model indicating that the predicted emotion is inaccurate for training the Al model, wherein the Al model is updated based on the feedback, SEO [0050], [0056]-[0057].
6. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of cues comprises a first plurality of cues, the predicted emotion comprises a first predicted emotion, and verifying the inaccuracy of the first predicted emotion includes: receiving a second plurality of cues from a plurality of trackers within a specified time period following receipts of the first plurality of cues; providing the second plurality of cues to the Al model to obtain a second predicted emotion; and determining an inconsistency between the first predicted emotion and the second predicted emotion, SEO [0080], [0086], [0107], Fig. 9.
7. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the verifying the inaccuracy of the predicted emotion includes: determining that the predicted emotion has a low degree of confidence; and directly querying the user as to whether the predicted emotion is accurate, SEO [0085], [0098], [0146].
8. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: verifying accuracy of the predicted emotion; presenting to the user a first option and a second option; receiving a selection of the first option or the second option from the user; and inferring a positive relationship between the predicted emotion and the selection, wherein a subsequent selection between the first option and the second option is used to determine accuracy of a subsequent predicted emotion based on the relationship between the predicted emotion and the selection, SEO [0058], [0084], [0146], [0151].
21. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 1, wherein applying the overlay to the initial content comprises incorporating the overlay into one or more video frames of the initial content, Caballero [0006], [0042], [0047].
22. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the overlay is performed by an overlay engine of the interaction application (mask instructions include “computer program code … which, when executed by a processor, render the mask features), Caballero [0047], [0066], [0085].
23. SEO and Caballero disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modified content is output by the interaction application for display by a device of the user (The output images 334 may be displayed on a display 350 of the client device), [0048].
9, 13, 14. SEO and Caballero disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program for performing a method, the computer-readable medium comprising: program instructions for receiving an input from a user for an interaction application during execution of the interaction application; program instructions for receiving a first plurality of cues from a plurality of trackers, wherein each tracker of the plurality of trackers is configured to generate a respective cue using artificial intelligence (AI); program instructions for providing the plurality of cues to an Al model that is configured to receive input including one or more cues and to generate output including a classification of at least one emotion based on the one or more cues; program instructions for obtaining, from the Al model a predicted emotion of the user; program instructions for determining, based on the predicted emotion of the user, a modification to be made to the initial content, the modification including an overlay; program instructions for generating the overlay; and program instructions for applying the overlay to the initial content generate modified content for the interaction application as similarity discussed above.
15, 19. SEO and Caballero disclose a computer system comprising: a processor; memory coupled to the processor and having stored therein instructions that, if executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to execute a method, comprising: receiving an input from a user for an interaction application during execution of the interaction application; receiving a plurality of cues from a plurality of trackers, wherein each tracker of the plurality of trackers is configured to generate a respective cue using artificial intelligence (AI); providing the plurality of cues to an AI model that is configured to receive input including one or more cues and to generate output including a classification of at least one emotion based on the one or more cues; obtaining, as output from the AI model, a predicted emotion of the user; generating initial content for the interaction application in response to the input from the user determining, based on the predicted emotion of the user, a modification to be made to the initial content, the modification including an overlay; generating the overlay; and applying the overlay to the initial content to generate modified content for the interaction application as similarity discussed above.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO (US 2020/0104670 A1) and Caballero (US 2020/0202579 A1) as applied above and further in view of Kalinli-Akbacak (US 2014/0112556 A1).
3, 11, 17. SEO and Caballero disclose the invention above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the interaction application comprises a video game, the modification including a modified game parameter in the video game, wherein the modified game parameter is used when executing the video game based on the input from the user. Kalinli-Akbacak disclose modifying a game parameter in the video game, wherein the game parameter that is modified is used when executing the video game based on the input (i.e. a game can become easier or harder for the user depending on the detected emotional state of the user), [0015], (115 & 110: Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify SEO with Kalinli-Akbacak’s game contexts, as both target dynamic personalization in interactive AI environments to improve immersion and performance and such modification would yield predictable result for personalizing gaming experience.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEO (US 2020/0104670 A1) and Caballero (US 2020/0202579 A1) as applied above and further in view of Subramanian (US 2011/0184721 A1).
4, 12, 18. SEO and Caballero disclose the invention above, including a translation service, SEO [0208], but does not expressly disclose wherein the input includes a communication from the user to a target user, the content includes a translation of the communication, the modification includes a modified translation of the communication, and the modified translation is delivered to a device of the target user. Subramanian disclose wherein the input includes a communication from the user to a target user, the content includes a translation of the communication, the modification includes a modified translation of the communication, and the modified translation is delivered to a device of the target user [0116]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify SEO with Subramanian and would have been motivated to do so to provide users of different language to communicate with each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
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 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David L. Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715