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 .
Acknowledgements
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed May 29, 2024.
Claims 21-40 are pending in the application.
Claims 25-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 21-24 and 28-40 are examined below.
Based on a comparison of the PGPub US 2024/0399255 A1 with applicant’s originally submitted specification, the PGPub appears to be a fair and accurate record of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, references to applicant’s specification will typically be made by this examiner as references to the PGPub. Unless otherwise noted, references to applicant’s specification as published via PGPub will be in the format [####], and references to applicant’s specification as filed will be in the format ¶## or by page and line number.
The notations in the immediately preceding paragraph apply to any future office actions from this examiner.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B is acknowledged.
Claims 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The restriction requirement dated March 24, 2026 is hereby made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The attached information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 statute.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-24, 28-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2024/0331262 A1) in view of Rico (US 2021/0158589 A1).
Liu discloses as follows:
Claim
Limitation
Liu
21,39,40
detecting, by one or more processors, a gameplay event during execution of a video game
"animation system receives input data from a user of a video game application during gameplay. The input data received from the user includes voice audio data" [0034]
21,39,40
identifying, by the one or more processors, an audio signal triggered by the gameplay event
21,39,40
extracting, by the one or more processors, from the identified audio signal, an audio property of the audio signal
"encoder (e.g., transformer model) of an animation system extracts and/or determines features embedded among the voice audio data received" [0035]
21,39,40
generating, by the one or more processors, an animation for the gameplay event based at least in part on the extracted audio property of the audio signal,
"a neural animation model of an animation system can generate animations based in part on the extracted embedded features" [0036]
21,39,40
wherein the animation has a duration that matches a duration of the audio signal
Liu does not explicitly disclose that the animation matches the duration of the audio signal. However, there are only three possibilities: that it is the same duration, longer, or shorter. And the examiner is unable to contrive any reason for making it longer or shorter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make them the same duration.
21,39,40
outputting, by the one or more processors, the audio signal and the generated animation simultaneously
"the animation system causes the one or more selected animations to play during runtime. In some embodiments, the animation system causes one or more virtual characters, virtual objects, and/or other animatable virtual entities of the like to perform the animation" [0042]
22
wherein generating the animation comprises selecting at least one property of the animation from a plurality of properties comprising: a number of keyframes in the animation, a timing of the keyframes in the animation, and a property of a keyframe in the animation
This is not explicitly recited by Liu. However, making the duration of the animation the same as the audio signal as discussed above would effectively select a timing of the number of keyframes of the animation.
33
wherein generating the animation comprises: generating a second keyframe, wherein a property of the second keyframe is selected based on the extracted audio property and the second keyframe is at a different time in the animation compared to the first keyframe, and generating the animation using both the first keyframe and the second keyframe
This amounts to a mere repetition of parts, and is, therefore, obvious over Liu.
35
wherein the audio property of the audio signal comprises at least one of a frequency, an amplitude, a timbre, a duration, an audio type, or a localisation
"embedded features among voice audio data include tone, pitch, inflection, volume, and speech or dialogue (e.g., spoken words), among other things" [0035]
36
wherein generating the animation comprises applying a trained machine learning model to the audio signal and the audio property, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to output the animation for the gameplay event from the audio signal and the audio property
"a neural animation model of an animation system can generate animations based in part on the extracted embedded features" [0036]
Liu fails to explicitly disclose but Rico teaches:
Claim
Limitation
Rico
23
wherein generating the animation comprises: generating a first keyframe, wherein a property of the first keyframe is selected based on the extracted audio property; and generating the animation using the first keyframe
"the character adjustment metrics can be used as an input for an NPC animation model. The NPC animation model can use the character adjustment metrics to make adjustments to a standard reaction profile for a particular NPC." [0030]
24
wherein generating the first keyframe comprises modifying a property of an existing keyframe
28
determining at least one of a frequency or an amplitude of the audio signal
"the intensity modulation 308 can analyze and measure ... a sound intensity level for the voice-text 302" [0056]
28
selecting the property of an object in the first keyframe based on the determined frequency or amplitude of the audio signal
"the A.I. animation module 112 can be configured to receive various inputs from the voice output processing 110 operation. These inputs include NPC player characteristics 304, context 306, and the sound intensity measurements from the intensity modulation 308. Using these various inputs, the machine learning model 114 can be used to predict the BLS 118 for the NPC 106" [0056]
29
determining a localization of the audio signal
"first NPC 106a is shown yelling in the direction of the player 802, “Rocks! Run!” (i.e., voice output 108). The BLS 118 that is used to animate first NPC 106a for the player 802 includes the first NPC 106a looking in the direction of the player 802 and pointing in the direction of the rocks that are tumbling down the trail." [0078]
29
selecting a directionality of an object in the first keyframe based on the determined localization
30
wherein the audio signal comprises a digital waveform
Rico discloses measuring the sound level ([0056]). And waveform is one of a limited number of ways to represent a sound. Therefore, it would have been obvious to represent the measured sound as a waveform.
30
wherein the method comprises analyzing the digital waveform to identify a highest amplitude point within the audio signal
See [0070]
35
wherein the audio property of the audio signal comprises at least one of a frequency, an amplitude, a timbre, a duration, an audio type, or a localisation
"the intensity modulation 308 can analyze and measure ... a sound intensity level for the voice-text 302" [0056]
36
wherein generating the animation comprises applying a trained machine learning model to the audio signal and the audio property, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to output the animation for the gameplay event from the audio signal and the audio property
"the A.I. animation module 112 can be configured to receive various inputs from the voice output processing 110 operation. These inputs include NPC player characteristics 304, context 306, and the sound intensity measurements from the intensity modulation 308. Using these various inputs, the machine learning model 114 can be used to predict the BLS 118 for the NPC 106. Accordingly, the output of the A.I. animation module 112 can be the BLS 118 which is used to determine an associated character adjustment metrics 310. The associated character adjustment metrics 310 can be used as input for the NPC animation model 120 to animate the NPC 106" [0056]
37
wherein generating the animation comprises: generating a first keyframe by modifying a property of an existing keyframe based on the extracted audio property, and applying the trained machine learning model to the existing keyframe, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to output the animation for the gameplay event from the audio signal, the audio property, and the existing keyframe
Although Rico does not explicitly disclose using an existing keyframe as an input to the machine learning model, Rico does disclose context as an input to the model, and it would have been obvious to include an existing keyframe as context, as this would be an efficient means to capture the context and communicate it to the model.
38
wherein extracting the audio property further comprises identifying an audio type of the audio signal based on metadata or a tag associated with the audio signal, wherein the audio type describes a category of the gameplay event, and wherein generating the animation is performed based at least in part on the identified audio type
Although Rico does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Rico discloses that the scene has metadata ([0054]), and it would have been obvious to make use of this metadata as an additional input to the animation engine.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Liu/Rico to include the teachings of Rico because all the claimed elements/steps were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements/steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, such as increased realism of the animation, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 23, 24, 31, and 32, the limitations added by these dependent claims can be reasonably interpreted as an intended use or intended result and, therefore, fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where the language in a method claim states only a purpose and intended result, the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.). See also MPEP 2111.04. Alternately for claims 23 and 24, see the above teachings of Rico.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu/Rico in view of examiner’s official notice.
Regarding claim 34, Liu/Rico discloses as discussed above, but Liu/Rico fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating the animation comprises generating at least one in-between frame by interpolating between the first keyframe and the second keyframe.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to interpolate between keyframes in order to efficiently generate video.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Liu/Rico to include the interpolation of examiner’s official notice because all the claimed elements/steps were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements/steps as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, such as increased efficiency or higher quality video, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Luo (US 2023/0032417 A1) discloses a system for generating an animation within a video game based on an audio input.
Avendano (US 2018/0336713 A1) discloses a system for animating an avatar based on user audio input.
Bastide (US 2019/0130654 A1) discloses a virtual reality system that creates visual representations of received audio, including basing that representation on localization of the audio ([0028]).
Ducard (US 2023/0398452 A1) discloses a gaming platform, which teaches using microphone input to generate animations ("user U may speak into a microphone and the system 10 may translate the speech into text using a speech-to-text application and display the translated text as a speech balloon within the gameplay" [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights