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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: RCE and Amendment, filed on 05/12//2026.
2. Claims 1, 3-22 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 15, 17 and 20-21 have been amended. Claim 22 is newly added. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
II. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 11 and 20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant indicates the claim amendments comply with the written description requirement.
In response, the rejection is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
III. Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 11 and 20-21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Independent claims 1 and 20
1. The Examiner’s Citation Contains a Factual Error: Col. 14, ll. 46-52 Does Not Disclose the Asserted Subject Matter
Applicant argues the portion of the reference cited was improperly associated with another citation location in the reference.
In response, the entirety of the reference is provided as prior art. Thus, Examiner asserts the claimed subject matter is disclosed by the teaching of the prior art.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
2.
A. The Passage Describes Input Device for UI Navigation, Not Textual Content for Styling
Applicant argues Milman fails to disclose a process in which the user types or otherwise provides textual content that is used to direct or influence the styling of an avatar or emoticon.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a process in which the user types or otherwise provides textual content that is used to direct or influence the styling of an avatar or emoticon) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, in response, Milman further discloses (col. 13, ll. 10-17) an avatar generation module/application provides a user interface where the user is prompted to provide some form of input. Milman further discloses user input to change avatar features/style via user input alternatively provided via voice commands, keyboard input and so forth (Fig. 4; col. 15, ll. 30-40, 46-51). Milman additionally discloses (col. 14, ll. 46-52) FIG. 4 is depicted utilizing touch input to leverage the described functionality, although other types of inputs may also or alternatively be used to leverage the described functionality, including stylus input, keyboard and/or mouse input, voice commands, gaze-based input, gesture input, and so forth, where keyboard, voice and gesture input are exemplary of providing textual input. Thus, Milman discloses styling an avatar via textual input.
B. The Examiner’s Equation of “Keyboard Input” with “Textual Input” Is Legally and Technically Unsound
Applicant argues the “keyboard input” as discloses in Milman does not produce “textual input” in the sense of text content that characterizes a fictional character or directs the styling of an emoticon.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “textual input” that characterizes (e.g. describes) a fictional character or directs the styling of an emoticon) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
C. Milman’s Entire Disclosure Contains No Textual User Input Component in the Styling Process
Applicant argues Milman does not disclose the user providing text to drive or influence the styling or emoticon generation.
In response, Milman discloses receiving a face image and style selection input that is provided by a user via a voice input (col. 8, ll. 56-63). Additionally, Milman discloses generating a parameterized avatar (e.g. emoticon) based on further user input such as voice input (Fig. 4). Milman further discloses user input to change avatar features/style via user input alternatively provided via voice commands, keyboard input and so forth (Fig. 4; col. 15, ll. 30-40, 46-51). Applicant’s Specification (Para 89) discloses feature selection via user input of audio or textual input and (Para 116) physical traits obtained based on textural or audio data. Thus, Milman’s audio (e.g. voice) and/or keyboard inputs are interpreted to correspond to Applicant’s claimed “textual input”.. Therefore, Milman discloses the user providing text to drive or influence the styling or emoticon generation
Dependent claims 3, 11 and 21
Applicant argues claims 3, 11 and 21 are patentable for at least the reasons that claim 1 is patentable.
In response, claims 3, 11 and 21 are not patentable based on at least the rejection from a rejected base claim.
IV. Rejection of Claims 8 and 10 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant dependent claims 8 and 10 are patentable for at least the reasons that claim 1 is patentable, because the applied references fail to render obvious the features presently recited in independent claim 1.
In response, claims 8 and 10 are not patentable based on at least the dependency from a rejected base claim.
V. Rejection of Claims 12 and 14 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant traverses the rejection of claims 12 and 14 as Wilson fails to cure deficiencies of Milman as applied to independent claims 1 and 20.
In response, claims 12 and 14 are not patentable based on at least the dependency from a rejected base claim.
VI. New Claim 22
Applicant argues claim 22 is allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claim 1 is not allowable.
In response, claim 22 is rejected based on the rationale as applied in the rejection that follows. Additionally, claim 22 is not allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claim 1 is not allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-79-11,1 3, 15 and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,967,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each provide generating emoticons based on select fictional characters features and styling as determined by a neural network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to conclude that the invention defined in the claims at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the paten because the patent provides a plurality of discriminators that evaluate the relevance of the features to generate emoticons based on select features and styling.
The following table shows the claims of the current application being examined and the conflicting claims of Patent 11,967,000.
Application 18/617,050 Patent: 11,967,000
Claims: 1, 3-5
Claim: 1
Claim: 6
Claim: 5
Claim: 7
Claim: 7
Claim: 8
Claim: 3
Claim: 9
Claim: 4
Claim: 10
Claim: 7
Claim: 11
Claim: 9
Claim: 12
Claim: 10, 13
Claim: 13
Claim: 10
Claims: 14-15
Claim: 11
Claim: 16
Claim: 15
Claim: 17
Claim: 17
Claim: 18
Claim: 18
Claim: 19
Claim: 19
Claim: 20
Claim: 20
The following table shows an example of the corresponding conflicting claims of the current application and Patent 11,967,000.
Application: 18/617,050 Patent: 11,967,000
An apparatus for generating one or more emoticons for a user with respect to one or more fictional characters, the apparatus comprising: a neural network configured to: receive a first image based on a set of features from multiple sets of features associated with the one or more fictional characters
An apparatus for generating one or more emoticons for one or more users with respect to one or more fictional characters, the apparatus comprising: a plurality of discriminators configured to: receive a first image generated by a multiple localized discriminator (MLD) generative adversarial network (GAN) based on a set of features from multiple sets of features associated with the one or more fictional characters resulting in generation of an output value associated with each of the plurality of discriminators, and determine a weight associated with each of the plurality of discriminators based on a distance between each discriminator and the set of features
a processor configured to: generate a plurality of images representing one or more emoticons associated with the one or more fictional characters based on each of the multiple sets of features, generate the one or more emoticons by styling at least one image of the user with respect to one or more images selected from the plurality of images and one or more user inputs
at least one processor configured to generate, using a pre-trained info graph, an image info-graph associated with the first image generated by the MLD GAN upon receiving the first image; calculate a relevance associated with each of the plurality of discriminators based on the image info-graph, the set of features and the distance; and the MLD GAN configured to: generate a plurality of images representing a plurality of emoticons associated with the one or more fictional characters based on each of the multiple sets of features, and generate the one or more emoticons by styling one or more user images with respect to one or more images selected from the plurality of images, and one or more user inputs
and a memory that stores the generated one or more emoticons and the plurality of images
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 and 3-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“receive a first textual user input corresponding to the one fictional character, obtain multiple sets of features extracted from the one fictional character”
It is unclear how features are extracted from the one fictional character, when the fictional character has not been received/obtained nor generated. Additionally, Applicant’s Specification (Para 87) discloses the features, which are associated with the fictional character(s), are obtained from a fictional character info-graph. Thus, correction is required.
Claim 1 recites:
“receive a first textual user input corresponding to the one fictional character, … generate the one or more emoticons by styling a first image based on…. one or more textual user inputs”.
It is unclear how one or more textual user inputs are used to generate the emoticons, when a single “first” textual user input is received. Additionally, it is unclear how multiple emoticons are generated from a single user input. Lastly, it is unclear how multiple emoticons are generated by styling only a first image. Thus, correction is required.
Claims 1 and 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the info-graph generator 216 may receive a textual description present in one or more of a content, one or more dialogues, one or more facial expressions based on events as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 116); generate the one or more emoticons through the multiple localized discriminator (MLD) generative adversarial network (GAN) and a genetic algorithm as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 58; Fig. 2A); where the MLD GAN generates a number of images representing a number of emotions associate with fictional character(s), after calculation of a relevance associated with each of a number of discriminators, after the number of discriminators receive the first image transmitted from the MLD GAN as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 92, 96, 97).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rebecca Milman et al., US 10,607,065 B2.
Independent claim 1, Milman discloses an apparatus for generating one or more emoticons for a user with respect to one fictional character, the apparatus comprising:
memory including instructions implementing a neural network (i.e. the trained machine-learning model is trained using a framework that includes a parameter network and a generative adversarial network (GAN) - col. 3, ll. 28-30; Fig. 3; avatar generation framework 120 that is implemented at least partially in hardware of a computing device to provide trained machine-learning models to the client device – col. 6, ll. 16-20); and
a processor communicatively coupled to memory (Fig. 8 “804”);
wherein the instructions (Fig. 1 “116”) when executed by the processor (Fig. 8 “802”; col. 20, ll. 47-54) cause the apparatus to:
receive a first textual user input, corresponding to the one fictional character (i.e. the application 116 enables users to interact with the client device 104 to generate parameterized avatars in connection with respective functionality of the application 116. Some examples of functionality that a suitably configured application can provide for a user of the client device 104 include social networking, gaming, multiplayer gaming, online shopping, content creation and/or editing, communication enhancing (e.g., an application for use in connection with composing text messages, instant messages, emails, etc.), and so forth – col. 5-6, ll. 60-6; an avatar generation module/application provides a user interface where the user is prompted to provide some form of input – col. 13, ll. 10-17; It is to be appreciated that although FIG. 4 is depicted utilizing touch input to leverage the described functionality, other types of inputs may also or alternatively be used to leverage the described functionality, including stylus input, keyboard and/or mouse input, voice commands, gaze-based input, gesture input, and so forth – col. 15, ll. 46-52; keyboard, voice and gesture input are interpreted as textual input);
obtain multiple sets of features extracted from the one fictional character (i.e. cartoon versions of body-part features (e.g., a face shape, hair, eyes, nose, mouth, wrinkles, general build, height, and so on), which are user selectable to build an avatar – col. 1, ll. 20-25; user interfaces that enable the user 404 to change the parameterized avatar's features may present k-number of different versions of a feature, which the user 404 can select from to change the feature – col. 15, ll. 20-25);
generate one or more of images representing one or more emoticons, each of which is generated from multiple sets of features extracted from the one fictional character (i.e. each of the first and second style machine-learning models 202, 204 is configured to generate parameterized avatars, e.g. emoticons, in a respective style, e.g., a first style and a second style, respectively – col 8, ll. 63-67; a generative adversarial network (GAN), e.g. machine learning model, provides a library of digital photographs paired with digital cartoon images based on corresponding features - col. 3, ll. 28-32; create differing cartoon versions - col. 14- 15, ll. 51-15 -, which are selectively available to apply to the user image to create an emoticon - Fig. 4 “424”), and
generate the one or more emoticons by styling the first image based on the one or more images and one or more textual user inputs (i.e. select images and provide input via user interfaces - Fig. 4 “408, 410”; using touch, gesture input and a keyboard – col. 14, ll. 46-52; col. 15, ll. 48-53).
Claim 3, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first image is generated by a multiple localized discriminator generative adversarial network (MLD GAN) based on the set of features from the multiple sets of features associated with one or more fictional characters (i.e. the described systems can leverage trained machine-learning models to generate parameterized avatars of different styles – col. 6, ll. 47-50; the trained machine-learning model uses a generative adversarial network (GAN) – col. 3, ll. 28-30) and the MLD GAN comprises the neural network (i.e. the machine-learning model may be configured as a neural network – col. 3, ll. 17-18), and wherein the neural network comprises a plurality of discriminators (i.e. the described systems can leverage trained machine-learning models – col. 6, ll. 47-50) and the plurality of discriminators is configured to receive the first image generated by the MLD GAN (i.e. a parameterized avatar is generated by a machine-learning model trained based on the previous cartoon style – col. 6, ll. 64-65).
Claim 11, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a fictional character info-graph associated with the one or more fictional characters based on a plurality of features associated with the one or more fictional characters (i.e. a library of cartoon features – abstract), generate a user info-graph associated with one or more users including the user based on a plurality of attributes associated with the one or more users (i.e. generates a condensed parameter vector indicative of features of the depicted person's face – col. 3, ll. 23-25), and map the one or more fictional characters to the one or more users based on the set of features and the plurality of attributes (i.e. determine correspondences of avatar cartoon features (e.g., noses, eyes, mouths, face shapes, hair, and so on) with the respective features of persons in the photorealistic digital images – col. 7, ll. 7-11; the image-to-style network 304 represents a learned mapping between digital photographs and corresponding images of the particular style – col. 11, ll. 35-38).
Independent claim 20, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claim 21, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more textual user inputs comprise at least one of a plurality of facial features, a facial tone, a hair color, a body built, a dressing style, and one or more accessories worn by a user (i.e. displaying a portion of a user interface that allows a user of the client device 104 to select one of multiple different avatar styles – col 7, ll. 53-56; provide style selection input – Fig. 2 “208”; a user interface is presented having instrumentalities that allow a user to select one of the two styles, e.g., a first instrumentality for selecting the first style and a second instrumentality for selecting the second style – col. 8-9, ll. 67-5; selected style models generate noses, eyes, etc. - col. 9, ll. 35-45; user interfaces include an “exploded view” user interface, via which features (e.g., eyes, mouth, nose, hair, facial structure, body type, and so on) are individually selectable; adjusting hair or eye color – col. 15, ll. 31-38).
Claim 22, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first image is an image of the one fictional character (i.e. various digital content (e.g., images, videos, augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) content) can be generated that includes one or more representations of the avatar – col. 14, ll. 34-38; The parameterized data is refined based on comparison with a coarse avatar image generated using the image-to-style network of the framework (block 708). In accordance with the principles discussed herein, the coarse avatar image is compared to a different avatar image generated based on the parameterized data. – co. 18, ll. 30-36).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebecca Milman et al., US 10,607,065 B2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tom Neckermann et al., US 2022/0377257 A1.
Claim 8, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 3.
Milman fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate a confidence score associated with the plurality of discriminators based on a plurality of parameters associated with each of the plurality of discriminators, and select remaining sets of features after generation of the first image based on the confidence score associated with the plurality of discriminators, which Neckermann discloses (i.e. persona style discriminator makes predictions indicating the degree of confidence; and modifies parameters of the model – Para 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Neckermann’s processor configured to: calculate a confidence score associated with the plurality of discriminators based on a plurality of parameters associated with each of the plurality of discriminators, and select remaining sets of features after generation of the first image based on the confidence score associated with the plurality of discriminators with the method of Milman because performing multiple passes on a discriminator predicts a degree of confidence of an image indicating an image likeness to a desired image and enables determination as to whether additional image adjustments are needed to provide the benefit of improved generation of an image of a desired likeness or customized style.
Claim 10, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, a photorealistic image of person is converted into an image depicting a cartoonized avatar (col. 1, ll. 26-30).
Milman fails to disclose in generating the one or more emoticons by styling the one or more user images, the processor is further configured to: super-impose the one or more images generated from the set of features associated with the one or more fictional characters onto the at least one image of the user, and generate the one or more emoticons by applying the one or more user inputs to the at least one image of the user, which Neckermann discloses (Fig. 5A, 5C, 5D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Neckermann’s processor configured to: super-impose the one or more images generated from the set of features associated with the one or more fictional characters onto the at least one image of the user, and generate the one or more emoticons by applying the one or more user inputs to the at least one image of the user with the method of Milman because transfer of a personalized style to a user image may change at least a portion of the user image and provide the advantage of providing an image that expresses customized personal style.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebecca Milman et al., US 10,607,065 B2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimiko Wilson et al., US 2022/0068296 A1.
Claim 12, Milman discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Milman fails to disclose, wherein, in generating the fictional character info-graph, the processor is further configured to: extract content data including textual data, audio data, and visual data from a content database, analyze one or more conversations and one or more dialogues between the one or more fictional characters, and determine the plurality of features by analyzing the one or more conversations and the one or more dialogue exchanges, which Wilson discloses (i.e. using identified information as input to an image generator model, e.g. a trained GAN, - Para 21-23; Fig. 1 “156”; extracted information includes input sound, emotion, text, and scenery – Para 10, 16, 34 – that are analyzed with natural language processing of conversation and messages – Para 26 - to determine and generate image representation including an avatar/character – Para 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Wilson’s apparatus wherein, in generating the fictional character info-graph, the processor is further configured to: extract content data including textual data, audio data, and visual data from a content database, analyze one or more conversations and one or more dialogues between the one or more fictional characters, and determine the plurality of features by analyzing the one or more conversations and the one or more dialogue exchanges with the apparatus of Milman because identifying and analyzing extracted information from conversation enables generation of image representations containing appropriate sentiment and provides the advantage of aiding communication.
Claim 14, Milman dsicloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Milman fails to disclose wherein, in generating the user info-graph, the processor is further configured to: analyze one or more conversations and one or more dialogue exchanges between the one or more users and one or more social media activities of the one or more users, which Wilson discloses (i.e. using identified information as input to an image generator model, e.g. a trained GAN, - Para 21-23; Fig. 1 “156”; extracted information includes input sound, emotion, text, and scenery – Para 10, 16 – that are analyzed with natural language processing of conversation and social media messages – Para 26 - to determine and generate image representation including an avatar/character – Para 10; retrieve social network information from a chat client – Para 17).
Similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 12 applies herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Alicia Harrington can be reached on 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights