DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on March 31, 2026. Claims 1-11 and 15-23 are pending and have been examined. Hence, this action has been made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The reply filed on March 31, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 15-20 have been considered but are not persuasive/moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C § 101, Applicant has amended each of the independent claims and asserts that “The performer-worn performance accessory is a physical component including an audio output device (e.g., a speaker). As amended, independent claim 1 is not directed to a mental process.” The examiner agrees with these assertions.
Applicant further asserts that “The analogy asserted in the Office Action, which includes "imagine a character," "think of how a character might respond," "respond while imitating the character's voice," describes deliberate, effortful cognitive steps. A human performing those steps is subject to reflection time, recall latency, and motor execution delay that are incompatible with the response window that live dialogue demands. The real-time constraint recited by currently amended independent claim 11 thus places currently amended independent claim 11 outside the category of mental processes.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. Any process, whether performed in the mind of a human or using the processor of a computer, occurs in real-time. The argument that a computer could perform a mental process faster than a human cannot constitute valid justification for why a human could not perform the same process mentally.
Applicant further asserts that “The language model operates on structured database inputs "one or more communication traits of the character" drawn from "the character database" within the latency constraints of live dialogue. This is not a human cognitive act simulated by a machine. Rather, it is a specific technical process with specific technical inputs, specific technical constraints, and specific technical outputs that are beyond human mental capability.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. A human with similar inputs could perform the exact same function that is recited in the claim language to be performed by the language model. Additionally, as explained in further detail below with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, the limitations of a language model and character database are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further asserts that “guidance provided by the USPTO identifies several considerations for whether an exception is integrated into a practical application, including whether the claim "applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment." (See MPEP § 2106.05(e).) The real-time requirement imposed by currently amended independent claims 1 and 11 does precisely that. It does not merely link the abstract steps to a computer, it imposes a technical performance requirement on the computer-implemented system: i.e., the hardware processor must execute the software code, engage the language model with its structured database inputs, and deliver output within a conversational time window.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. The limitation of “real-time processing” cannot hold patentable weight because all processes, whether performed in the mind of a human or in the processor of a computer, occur in real-time.
Applicant further asserts that “The Federal Circuit has consistently held that claims are integrated into a practical application where they produce "a specific, tangible improvement" in technology. (See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).) Currently amended independent claims 1 and 11 produce "audio data of the character-specific response in a voice of the character," which is audio generated from structured character data and live performer input. This is not an abstract result. It is a specific technical output of a specific technical process. The requirement by … independent claim 11 that this audio data be output "for use by the performer" further grounds independent claims 1 and 11 in a real-world, non-abstract application context." The examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. The applicant cites Enfish, but fails to connect how the claimed invention at hand actually provides a technical improvement.
Applicant further asserts that “The real-time requirement imposed by currently amended independent claim 1, as well as by currently amended independent claim 11, is not an instruction to "apply it" on a computer, rather it is a technical performance specification that defines how the computer must function. A system that generates character-specific responses from a character database and a language model, with AI-synthesized audio in the voice of the character, and in the case of independent claim 11, based on the prosody of the character, within the latency constraints of live human dialogue, is not a generic computer performing a generic function. That is to say, currently amended independent claims 1 and 11 recite an integrated technical system performing a specific, technically constrained function." The examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. The applicant states that the claimed invention is not a generic computer performing a generic function, but the justification they give for why is simply a restatement or paraphrase of the claim language. The applicant fails to actually provide valid justification as to how the claimed invention does not use generic components, instead merely stating that the combination of such is “technically constrained.” As amended, there is no language in the independent claims that would prevent a human from performing these steps, as addressed in further detail below with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC § 101.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103, the applicant asserts with respect to claims 11 that “Tiwari does not disclose obtaining any prosodic character trait from a database for use in generating a response. Paragraph [0052] of Tiwari confirms that the generation step uses "vocabulary 584, phrases 556, and at least one of syntax rules 586, all of which are idiosyncratic to the persona to be assumed." Prosody appears nowhere in this combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Tiwari fails to disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest the limitations "obtaining from the character database, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, one or more communication traits of the character, the one or more communication traits including a prosody of the character," and "generating, by the language model using the description of the speech and the one or more communication traits as inputs ... a character-specific response to the speech," affirmatively required by currently amended independent claim 11.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. Paragraph [0012] of Tiwari et al. disclose that “The solutions disclosed in the present application advantageously enable the automated determination of naturalistic expressions for use by a multi-persona social agent in communicating with a user, based on learned speech, sentiment or mood, and personality characteristics of the particular character persona being assumed by the multi-persona social agent. Those naturalistic expressions based on the learned speech, sentiment or mood, and personality characteristics of a particular character persona are hereinafter referred to as “sentiment driven personified responses.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, sentiment-driven personified responses are considered analogous to prosody, since prosody under the broadest reasonable interpretation includes features such as intonation, rhythm, and mood, all of which are closely tied to sentiment.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments to the remaining claim rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102 and 103, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims are method claims (11, 18-20), apparatus/machine claims or manufacture claim under (Step 1), but under Step 2A all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes. These mental processes are more particularly recited in claims 1 and 11 as:
obtaining from the character database, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, one or more communication traits of the character the one or more communication traits including a prosody of the character…
generating, by the language model using the description of the speech and the one or more communication traits as inputs, in real-time with respect to the speech by the human, a character-specific response to the speech;…
synthesizing, by the AI model using the character-specific response and the description of the facial expression by the performer as inputs, audio data of the character-specific response in a voice of the character…
Under Step 2A Prong One, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea and specifically a mental process. As detailed above, the steps of obtaining, generating, synthesizing, etc. may be practically performed in the human mind with the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper. For example, a human could imagine a character that they are familiar with, think of how a character might respond to a friend’s question, and then respond to the friend’s question while imitating the character’s voice.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 11 and 18-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, claim 11 recites the additional elements of a hardware processor (pg. 9, line 3), system memory storing a software code (pg. 7, line 12), a character database (pg. 4, lines 21-22), a language model (pg. 15, lines 1-10), and an artificial intelligence model (pg. 5, lines 4-11). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, claim 11 recites the additional elements of “receiving…” and “outputting…”, both of which amount to insignificant extra-solution activities which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer is noted as a general computer {hardware processor (pg. 9, line 3); system memory storing a software code (pg. 7, line 12); character database (pg. 4, lines 21-22); language model (pg. 4, line 24 - pg. 5, line 2); artificial intelligence model (pg. 5, lines 2-3)}. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitations in the claims noted above are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activities. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 18, the claim relates to interaction data including environment data or prosody data. This relates to a human observing their surroundings before imitating the character’s voice, or taking into account the mood of their friend before imitating the character’s voice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 19, the claim relates to using interaction history from an interaction database. This relates to a human remembering inside jokes from previous interactions with their friend and referencing those inside jokes while imitating the character. The limitation of “an interaction history database” is recited at a high level of generality (pg. 15, lines 11-18) and merely equates to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claim 20, the claim relates to the generative AI model comprising a multi-modal foundation model. The limitation of “multi-modal foundation model” is recited at a high level of generality (pg. 5, lines 4-11) and merely equates to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 11 and 18-20 recite a non-statutory mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 20220129627 A1 (Tiwari et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 20160001193 A1 (Eck et al.).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Tiwari et al. disclose a system comprising:
a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0017], "system 100 includes computing platform 102 having hardware processor 104 ... and system memory 106 implemented as a non-transitory storage device. ");
the system memory storing a software code, a character database, a language model and an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to emulate speech by a character (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0017], "According to the present exemplary implementation, system memory 106 stores software code 110, NN based predictive models 120, and persona specific conversational databases 122." ¶ [0036]-[0039], "NN based predictive model 320 may include neural language model 321, statistical parsing model 323, and entity associations 325. ... Neural Language model 321 is trained to predict the next word or phrase in sentence generation during an interaction by multi-persona social agent 116a or 116b, in FIG. 1, with a human user, such as user 118. ... Statistical parsing model 323 may be trained on Persona DB 322 to identify the style of speaking adopted by the character persona corresponding to Persona DB 322." Persona specific conversational databases 112, neural language model 321, and statistical parsing model 323 are considered analogous to a character database, a language mode, and an AI model respectively);
wherein the hardware processor is configured to execute the software code to:
receive interaction data (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0044], "flowchart 470 begins with receiving input data 115 corresponding to an interaction with user 118 (action 471)." Input data 115 is considered analogous to interaction data) descriptive of an interaction (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0044], "input data 115 corresponding to the interaction with user 118 may correspond to one or more of speech by user 118, a non-verbal vocalization by user 118, a facial expression by user 118, a gesture by user 118, or a physical posture of user 118.") between a human and [a performer who is impersonating] the character (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0044], "Input data 115 may be received in the form of verbal and non-verbal expressions by user 118 in interacting with multi-persona social agent 116a or 116b, for example.");
obtain, from the character database, one or more communication traits of the character (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0019], "each of persona specific conversational databases 122a-122c also corresponds to a respective one of the multiple different character personas that may be selectively assumed by multi-persona social agents 116a or 116b, and may include a vocabulary, phrases, and syntax rules characteristic of expressions used by its corresponding character persona.");
generate, by the language model using the interaction data and the one or more communication traits as inputs, a character-specific response to speech by the human (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0052], "Flowchart 470 continues with generating, using generic expression 580 and the respective one of NN based predictive models 120 corresponding to the persona to be assumed by multi-persona social agent 116a or 116b, sentiment driven personified response 588 for the interaction with user 118"); and
synthesize, by the AI model using the character-specific response (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0055], "sentiment driven personified response 588 may be generated by software code 110, executed by hardware processor 104, and using one of NN based predictive models 120." NN-based predictive models are considered analogous to an AI model) as inputs, audio data of the character-specific response in a voice of the character (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0056], "output module 140/240 may include an audio output device, as well as display 108/208 showing an avatar or animated character as a representation of multi-persona social agent 116a. In those implementations, sentiment driven personified response 588 may be rendered as one or more of speech by the avatar or animated character, a non-verbal vocalization by the avatar of animated character, a facial expression by the avatar or animated character, a gesture by the avatar or animated character, or a physical posture adopted by the avatar or animated character.")….
Tiwari et al. do not explicitly disclose all of a performance accessory worn by the performer.
However, Eck et al. disclose a performance accessory worn by the performer (Eck et al. ¶ [0044], " FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary costume assembly 200, as may be used in the system 100 of FIG. 1, in more detail."), the performance accessory configured to:
receive [synthesized] audio data (Eck et al. ¶ [0045], "the interactive controller (or human-worn belt pack controller) receives wireless data commands and audio from an external (but proximate) audio base station (ABS) and also transmits audio and data back to the ABS."); and
output, using the [synthesized] audio data and an audio output device of the performance accessory, the character-specific response in the voice of the character (Eck et al. ¶ [0033], "the controller 150 may stream selected ones of the audio clips from the SD card to the speaker 172 (for a character's voice or whatever a recorded sound may be in an audio clip)") during the interaction between the human and the performer (Eck et al. ¶ [0030], "The host controller 180 may process... audio input (e.g., people's conversations) to select audio clips to playback over speaker 172 ... (e.g., a person nearby may say “Hello, Character's Name” and the host controller 180 may be operated to select a proper response such as “Well, Hello to you too, and welcome to the Venue's Name”).").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwani et al.’s character voice synthesis to include Eck et al.’s performance accessory because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Tiwani et al.’s character voice synthesis as modified by Eck et al.’s performance accessory can yield a predictable result of improving a visitor’s amusement park experience since a costumed performer could respond to visitors of the park in the voice of the character, improving the illusion of the costume. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Tiwani et al.’s character voice synthesis the ability to do Eck et al.’s performance accessory since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. further disclose wherein the synthesized audio data is received by a transceiver (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0045], "According to various implementations, system 100 advantageously includes input module 130/230, which may obtain video and perform motion capture, using camera(s) 234e for example, in addition to capturing audio using microphone(s) 236. As a result, input data 115 from user 118 may be conveyed to software code 110." ¶ [0028], "When included as a component of input module 130/230, transceiver 231 may be implemented as a wireless communication unit enabling multi-persona social agent 116b to obtain payload data 126 from payload data source 124 via communication network 112 and network communication links 114.") [of the performance accessory].
Eck et al. further disclose wherein the [synthesized] audio data is received by a transceiver of the performance accessory (Eck et al. ¶ [0045], "the interactive controller (or human-worn belt pack controller) receives wireless data commands and audio from an external (but proximate) audio base station (ABS) and also transmits audio and data back to the ABS. Therefore, it can be considered a wireless transceiver for data transmission and a full-duplex audio intercom allowing mono audio to travel from the ABS to the belt pack controller (e.g., for output via performer-worn ear buds or the like within the character head portion of the walk-around costume).").
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. further disclose wherein the interaction data is received from a transceiver (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0045], "According to various implementations, system 100 advantageously includes input module 130/230, which may obtain video and perform motion capture, using camera(s) 234e for example, in addition to capturing audio using microphone(s) 236. As a result, input data 115 from user 118 may be conveyed to software code 110." ¶ [0028], "When included as a component of input module 130/230, transceiver 231 may be implemented as a wireless communication unit enabling multi-persona social agent 116b to obtain payload data 126 from payload data source 124 via communication network 112 and network communication links 114.") [of the performance accessory].
Eck et al. further disclose wherein the interaction data is received from a transceiver of the performance accessory (Eck et al. ¶ [0029], "The microphones 174, 175 may listen to people or observers that are nearby to a performer wearing the costume assembly in the venue 104. This received sound or audio content is then provided to the performer wearing the costume head 190 and also transmitted with the audio portion of the RF transmissions 164 from the belt pack controller 150 over the full-duplex connection 160 to the ABS 110" Full-duplex connection 160 is considered analogous to a transceiver).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Eck et al. further disclose wherein the performance accessory comprises mask worn by the performer (Eck et al. ¶ [0052], "FIG. 4 illustrates a flow diagram of a control method 400 for operating and controlling a costume assembly worn by a performer also wearing a walk-around costume (e.g., one with a character head that may or may not be articulable).").
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. further disclose wherein the client hardware processor is configured to execute the client software code to:
output, using the synthesized audio data and the audio output device, the character-specific response in the voice of the character (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0056], "sentiment driven personified response 588 may be rendered as one or more of speech by the avatar or animated character").
Eck et al. further disclose wherein the performance accessory further comprises a client hardware processor, a client software code (Eck et al. ¶ [0033], "The belt pack controller 150 is the “brain” of the costume assembly and is responsible for control. At its core, there is software run by a processor(s)") and an audio output device (Eck et al. ¶ [0026], "Significantly, the ABS 110 and belt pack controller 150 each have an audio input/output element (e.g., a transceiver) as shown at 112, 152"), and wherein the client hardware processor is configured to execute the client software code to:
output, using the [synthesized] audio data and the audio output device, the character-specific response in the voice of the character (Eck et al. ¶ [0027], "The audio or sound system 170 includes a speaker 172 mounted in the character/costume head 190, and the belt pack controller 150 functions to operate the speaker 172 via line(s) 171 to output audio content based on the audio clip identified in the command/cue 182 after its retrieval from data storage in the belt pack controller 150 (e.g., in an SD card or the like)." ¶ [0033], "the controller 150 may stream selected ones of the audio clips from the SD card to the speaker 172 (for a character's voice or whatever a recorded sound may be in an audio clip)").
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Eck et al. further disclose wherein the computing platform is integrated with the performance accessory (Eck et al. ¶ [0056], "advantages include: (a) providing a self-contained device (e.g., the costume assembly) that integrates a plurality of devices and functions into one package, e.g., an integration of a processor, data and audio amplifiers, audio inputs and outputs, an RF module, and storage media"), the hardware processor is configured to execute the software code to:
output, using the [synthesized] audio data and the audio output device, the character-specific response (Eck et al. ¶ [0030], "The host controller 180 may process... audio input (e.g., people's conversations) to select audio clips to playback over speaker 172 ... (e.g., a person nearby may say “Hello, Character's Name” and the host controller 180 may be operated to select a proper response such as “Well, Hello to you too, and welcome to the Venue's Name”).") in the voice of the character (Eck et al. ¶ [0033], "the controller 150 may stream selected ones of the audio clips from the SD card to the speaker 172 (for a character's voice or whatever a recorded sound may be in an audio clip)").
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Eck et al. further disclose wherein the performance accessory further comprises at least one environmental sensor (Eck et al. ¶ [0029], "The microphones 174, 175 may be positioned in the ears or other portions of the head 190 so as to be exposed at or be near an exposed surface so as to be able to sense or receive sound in the environment or space about the costume head 190."), and the interaction data further includes environmental data from the at least one environmental sensor (Eck et al. ¶ [0029], "the microphones 174, 175 may listen to people or observers that are nearby to a performer wearing the costume assembly in the venue 104. This received sound or audio content is then provided to the performer wearing the costume head 190").
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to that of claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 16 are similar in scope to that of claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 17 are similar in scope to that of claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20210151029 A1 (Gururani et al.).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. do not explicitly disclose all of a prosody detection module.
However, Gurarani et al. disclose a prosody detection module configured to detect a prosody of the speech by the human (Gururani et al. ¶ [0037], "Additionally or alternatively, the set of speech style features may be determined from a user input of speech audio data using one or more additional modules, such as a prosody analyzer and/or a speaker attribute analyzer."), and interaction data further includes prosody data describing the prosody of the speech by the human (Gururani et al. ¶ [0037], "The user interface 202 may also be configured to receive a user speaker attribute input 208 which is processed by the system to generate a speaker attribute tensor 218, with the set of speech style features further comprising the speaker attribute tensor 218.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. to incorporate Gururani et al.’s prosody analyzer because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Tiwari et al.’s character imitation system as modified by Gururani et al.’s prosody analyzer can yield a predictable result of improving audience experience since prosody detection would allow performers to understand and more convincingly respond to audience prompts. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Tiwari et al.’s character imitation system the ability to do Gururani et al.’s prosody analysis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to that of claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent 9704103 A1 (Suskind et al.).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. do not explicitly disclose all of an interaction history.
However, Suskind et al. disclose an interaction history database including an interaction history of the human with the character (Suskind et al. ¶ (3), "We refer to the user as the digital companion's “pal”" ¶ (29)-(30), "Interaction details are detected and stored for every conversation and interaction of the pal with the companion. ... The intelligent agent can build, store, and use a personal knowledge graph for each user."), wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to:
obtain the interaction history from the interaction history database (Suskind et al. ¶ (30), "The intelligent agent can build, store, and use a personal knowledge graph for each user. The knowledge graph identifies elements of information related to a pal and associations among those elements. The elements may include, for example, personal information, beliefs, goals, opinions, and emotional reactions. The knowledge graph is useful in the work that the intelligent agent performs to provide affinity therapy for each pal." Storing and using knowledge graphs for interacting with the user is considered analogous to obtaining interaction history from interaction history databases); and
include the interaction history as an additional input to the language model when using the language model to generate the character-specific response (Suskind et al. ¶ (62), "A dialogue controller (which we also sometimes call a modality controller) receives the speech of the user and other interaction information from the device and forwards to ... [an] automated intelligent agent. The dialogue controller also receives outgoing synthesized speech and other interaction information from the intelligent agents and forwards it to the device where the app can use it for conversations and interactions of the portrayed companion, with the pal.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. to incorporate Suskind et al.'s interaction history.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “usage of the device will help it become increasingly accurate in predicting what the user needs in an increasingly variety of situations and interactions,” as noted by the Suskind et al. disclosure in paragraph (21).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 19 are similar in scope to that of claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20230145369 A1 (McIntyre-Kirwin et al.).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. do not explicitly disclose all of a multi-modal foundation model.
However, McIntyre-Kirwin et al. disclose a generative AI model comprising a multi-modal foundation model (McIntyre-Kirwin et al. ¶ [0034], "FIG. 1 illustrates a flow diagram of a multi-modal model for controlling an output for a virtual character, in accordance with various embodiments. The multi-modal model may combine speech recognition techniques, natural language understanding, computer vision (e.g., facial expression recognition of a user, “world awareness” data about the user’s physical environment and other physical objects), a knowledge base (ontology), a persona of a specified virtual character, and a social simulation into a unified multi-modal mode. The multi-modal model may be capable using the multiple internal models together to make a believable and emotionally engaging artificial intelligence algorithm that results in an accurate virtual character.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. to incorporate McIntyre-Kirwin et al.'s multi-modal foundational model because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, Tiwari et al.’s AI model and McIntyre-Kirwin et al.'s multi-modal foundational model perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being imitating dynamically responsive characters. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of Tiwari et al.’s AI model by replacing it with McIntyre-Kirwin et al.'s multi-modal foundational model. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 20 are similar in scope to that of claim 10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20180147728 A1 (Vyas et al.).
Claim 21
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. do not explicitly disclose all of an internal camera facing the performer.
However, Vyas et al. disclose wherein a performance accessory further comprises an internal camera facing the performer (Vyas et al. ¶ [0014], “The Animated Character Head may be worn by a performer” ¶ [0034]-[0037], "The Animated Character Head 10 may also include the one or more sensors 50 ... the one or more sensors 50 may include machine vision sensors 54 such as imaging sensors and/or cameras, configured to visually track motions or movements of the performer's face (e.g., facial gestures).").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. to incorporate Vyas et al.’s internal cameras because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, Eck et al.’s performance accessory as modified by Vyas et al.’s internal camera can yield a predictable result of improving the performance accessory’s illusion of character since the performance accessory would be better able to ascertain certain inputs for performing certain actions during the interaction between the performer and the human. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Eck et al.’s performance accessory the ability to do Vyas et al.’s internal camera since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. further disclose wherein the interaction data further comprises a description of a facial expression [by the performer] in response to the speech (Tiwari et al. ¶ [0044], "input data 115 corresponding to the interaction with user 118 may correspond to one or more of speech by user 118, a non-verbal vocalization by user 118, a facial expression by user 118, a gesture by user 118, or a physical posture of user 118.").
Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. do not explicitly disclose all a description of a facial expression by the performer.
However, Vyas et al. disclose wherein the interaction data further comprises a
description of a facial expression by the performer (Vyas et al. ¶ [0034]-[0037], "The Animated Character Head 10 may also include the one or more sensors 50 ... the one or more sensors 50 may include machine vision sensors 54 such as imaging sensors and/or cameras, configured to visually track motions or movements of the performer's face (e.g., facial gestures).")
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. to incorporate Vyas et al.’s facial expression description.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is similar to the suggestion/motivation described above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 23
Regarding claim 23, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. do not explicitly disclose all of an eye tracking device.
However, Vyas et al. disclose wherein the performance accessory further comprises an eye tracking device configured to track eye movement of the performer (Vyas et al. ¶ [0034]-[0036], "The Animated Character Head 10 may also include the one or more sensors 50 ... the one or more sensors 50 may include a sensor that monitors eye activity. As such, the one or more sensors 50 may include an eye tracking sensor 52 that can be utilized to monitor and/or receive inputs of a performer's eye activity to make animation selections from the list of available animations 60.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Tiwari et al. in view of Eck et al. to incorporate Vyas et al.’s eye tracking.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is similar to the suggestion/motivation described above with respect to claim 21.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB B VOGT whose telephone number is (571)272-7028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7pm 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, Paras D Shah can be reached at (571)270-1650. 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.
/JACOB B VOGT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
06/15/2026
Prosecution Insights