DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 09/03/2026 has been entered. New claim 21 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-21 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection, on pages 10-17, the Applicant cites the December 5th, 2025 USPTO Memorandum, providing notice of MPEP changes in light of Ex Parte Desjardins. The Applicant states how this memo emphasizes the analysis of subject matter eligibility to be conducted in terms of whether the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to specific technical enhancements that improve the functioning of a computer related technology. The Applicant also cites the previous guidance for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 from December 20th, 2018. The Applicant states that this guidance revised the procedures for determining whether a patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and supersedes any portions of the MPEP that conflicts with the most recent guidance. The Applicant asserts that the amended limitations of claim 1 amount to significantly more than merely an abstract idea such as a mental steps or processes, especially in view of the specifically recited technical solution directed toward a particular configuration of the various technical elements set forth by the particular claim recitations. They further assert that the presently recited claims, taken as a whole, recite significant claim elements that cannot be satisfied by mental steps or processes, are not merely abstract ideas as defined by case law, and the claimed subject matter related to a specific improvement in a computer-related technology including technical structural elements. The Applicant states that the amended claim recitations as particularly recited in relation to voice metadata including information indicating a type of the voice sound and a viewing position of each viewer include technical improvements to computer techniques through the inclusion of the recited elements in acquired metadata. The Applicant asserts that the presently claimed invention provides a specific technical solution by use of acquired rights information pre-assigned to first content, recorded as metadata of the first content, and the rights information including a set threshold of right holder permissions to perform the assignment of the rights information related to the second content.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original claims, and the claims as amended, are merely utilizing computer devices, in this case “circuitry” and “one or more information processing terminals”, as tools to perform a method which is directed to an abstract idea. The claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a system for obtaining, processing, analyzing, and outputting data (i.e. voice metadata). This is an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). The steps of obtaining and processing the voice metadata from the viewers could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning, save for the recitation of generic computing components. Further, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of “circuitry” and “one or more information processing terminals” are generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or using computer devices and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The “circuitry” and “one or more information processing terminals” are recited at such high-levels of generality and are used merely as tools to perform the abstract idea faster or more efficiently. There is no reasonable improvement to the functioning of the data obtaining, processing, analyzing, or outputting, the circuitry, the information processing terminals, the computational system as a whole, nor to any other technology or technical field. It appears the Applicant is merely reforming and restating that the claim is significantly more without providing any specific instances as to how or why. The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims, as written and amended, do not include more than mere instructions to perform the abstract method using generic computer components. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, on pages 17-20, of claims 1-9, 12-16, and 19-20 under Shigeta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142767), hereinafter referred to as Shigeta, the Applicant asserts that there is nothing in Shigeta that would fairly teach or suggest the elements previously recited in the independent claim 1, nor in the amended claim. They state that Shigeta clearly fails to teach or suggest every element as recited by amended independent claim 1. The Applicant also asserts that even though Shigeta generally considers location of sound images, there is simply no teaching of suggestion in the reference of any acquired voice metadata that includes the presently clarified combination of claim elements. Therefore, the Applicant asserts that claim 1 is not anticipated by Shigeta under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the argument that Shigeta does not disclose any portion of the original or the amended independent claim 1, Shigeta Fig. 3 clearly shows multiple information processing devices (reference characters 12, 13, and 15, etc.). Shigeta paragraphs [0044]-[0047] state “Further, sensors 11A and 11B for detecting reactions of the viewing users are included in each of the television apparatuses 30A and 30B. Hereinafter, in the case where it may not be necessary to individually describe each of the sensors 11A and 11B, they will be called a sensor 11. The sensor 11 is implemented, for example, by a camera (imaging apparatus) or a microphone (sound collection apparatus), and acquires movements, facial expressions or audio of a viewing user. The camera may be a special camera which can acquire depth information of a photographic subject (viewing user), such as Microsoft's Kinect, and the microphone (hereinafter, called a microphone) may be a plurality of microphones set such as in a microphone array. The sensor 11 outputs reaction information (a detection result), which shows an acquired reaction of a viewing user, to the client apparatus 1. In such a configuration, the viewing reaction feedback system according to an embodiment of the present disclosure can provide empathy of emotions, by performing feedback of emotion expression data (nonverbal reactions or the like, which will be described below), which shows viewing reactions of other viewing users, to a viewing user. For example, at the time when viewing a comedy program, when a laughing voice, applause or a laughing face of the site is output, a user will have a more interesting feeling himself or herself, compared to the case of not. Further, at the time when viewing a science program, when the appearance of nodding, a convincing voice or an admiring voice is heard, a user will have a strong feeling of his or her own conviction or understanding. Further, at the time when viewing a sports match, when hearing cheering, liveliness will be strong, and in contrast, when a disappointed voice is heard, regrettable feelings will be strong. Further, at the time when viewing a program with feelings of being deeply moved, when hearing a sniffling sound or seeing a face with flowing tears, feelings of being deeply moved will be strong. In this way, when an emotion is shared by the appearance (performers of a program) of other users viewing a content, a user will have this emotion strengthened”. These paragraphs clearly show verbal and nonverbal information indicating sounds being emitted from users interacting with a program in real-time from one or more information processing terminals. Shigeta paragraph [0071] states “The determination unit 17 determines emotion expression data, based on the integration result. For example, in the case of a high proportion of the emotion of “laughter”, the determination unit 17 determines emotion expression data representing the emotion of “laughter”. Such emotion expression data is formed, for example, by audio data or text data. Emotion expression data representing the emotion of “laughter” may be, for example, the above described nonverbal reactions. Specifically, it may be, for example, audio data of a laughing voice (of a different sound source which is not the raw voice of the viewing user 3A) registered in advance, or text data of an onomatopoeic word such as “ahaha” or “hehehe”. The privacy of each user is protected, by replacing with a different sound source”. The above clearly shows control being taken by the determination unit 17 to generate voice data for output, where that voice data is also potentially registered in advance. Shigeta paragraph [0078] states “The output control unit 18 performs a control so as to output emotion expression data determined by the determination unit 17 from the information presentation apparatus. For example, the output control unit 18 causes reproduction from a speaker (an example of an information presentation apparatus) in the case where the emotion expression data is audio data of a laughing voice, and causes a display superimposed on a content in the television apparatus 30B (an example of an information presentation apparatus) in the case where the emotion expression data is text data. Hereinafter, output examples of emotion expression data will be described by referring to FIG. 4 to FIG. 7”. This clearly shows that the output voice data is being controlled. Shigeta paragraph [0088] states “FIG. 7 is a figure for describing an output example of emotion expression data (nonverbal reactions) formed by audio data. As shown in FIG. 7, a plurality of speakers 4 (an example of an information presentation apparatus) are arranged in the viewing environment B, and a surround speaker system is implemented. The plurality of speakers 4 may be constituted by a speaker array. The output control unit 18 of the client apparatus 1B outputs emotion expression data formed by audio data, by using a speaker (front speaker) built into the television apparatus 30B, and the speakers 4 arranged in the surroundings of the viewing user 3B. Here, the output control unit 18 performs a sound image location control so as if other viewing users 31a and 31b are actually beside or behind the viewing user 3B, replicates a sense of presence, and provides a stronger empathy experience. At this time, the output control unit 18 may locate a sound image of emotion expression data corresponding to a specific other viewing user who is acquainted with the viewing user 3B beside the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing user 31a). Further, the output control unit 18 may locate sound images of emotion expression data corresponding to an unspecified large number of other viewing users who are not acquainted with the viewing user 3B behind the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing users 31b)” and paragraph [0092] states “For example, at the time when a soccer match is viewed in each of the viewing environments, the server 2-1 respectively estimates emotions of supporters of the team which each of the viewing users 3 are supporting based on reactions of the supporters acquired from supporter seats of the soccer stadium, and transmits an estimation result to each of the viewing environments. Also, for example, in the viewing environment B, the client apparatus 1B-1 can present emotion expression data representing the emotions of supporters of the team which the viewing user 3B is supporting.” These clearly show that positions in which viewers are oriented are reflected in the output sound, thereby being portions of the metadata. Shigeta paragraph [0077] states “Further, the determination unit 17 may switch the type of emotion expression data to be determined in accordance with the condition or frequency, even if a same emotion. For example, in the case where the emotion of “laughter” is continuously estimated, the determination unit 17 changes and determines laughing voices of different types, without performing a determination for a same laughing voice. Further, the determination unit 17 may change the type of emotion expression data in accordance with a content being viewed. For example, in the case where an emotion of “delight” is estimated, and in the case where the content is a live performance of a female idol, the determination unit 17 estimates that the viewer demographic of this content is male, and so determines emotion expression data by male audio such as “oh”. Further, in the case where the content is a live performance of a male idol, the determination unit 17 estimates that the viewer demographic of this content is female, and so determines emotion expression data by female audio such as “eek”. Further, other than a viewer demographic of a content, the determination unit 17 may determine emotion expression data of a type corresponding to an attribute of the viewing users, such as the male to female ratio of the viewing users, which is included in an integration result. Note that, the determination unit 17 may determine emotion expression data in accordance with at least one of a viewer demographic of a content and an attribute of the viewing users”. Again, this clearly shows that the gathered voice metadata may be of multiple different types, and the determination unit 17 may switch that type, thereby indicating the type of voice sound it is. All of the above cited paragraphs from Shigeta clearly disclose each and every aspect of the amended independent claim 1, therefore independent claim 1 is anticipated by Shigeta under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, on pages 20-21, of claims 10-11 and 17-18 under Shigeta, in view of Murugan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0317673), hereinafter referred to as Murugan, the Applicant asserts that because Shigeta does not anticipate each and every limitation of amended independent claim 1, then the dependent claims must be allowable. They also state that Murugan fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shigeta. In response to this, detailed clearly above in the section concerning the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection, Shigeta anticipates each and every limitation of amended claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that Murugan fails to remedy Shigeta’s deficiencies are moot. Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 recite a system, method, and computer-readable medium (CRM), respectively. These claims therefore invoke a statutory category (machine and process) in Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1, 19, and 20, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite acquiring voice data, generating voice data for output based on the acquired voice data, and controlling the output of the generated voice data. This is an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. mental processes such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). The steps of receiving data (i.e. voice metadata or data), processing the data, deciding what new data to generate, and outputting data could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning, save for the recitation of generic computer components.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Two: The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recitation of “circuitry” and “one or more information processing terminals” are generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The circuitry and information processing terminals are recited at such a high-level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea faster and more efficiently. The data receiving, a pre-solution activity, and outputting, a post-solution activity, are steps required to perform the method and do not add a meaningful limitation. Mere data gathering, analysis, and output do not provide an inventive concept. There is no improvement to the collection of the voice data, the generation of new voice data, the outputting of the generated voice data, the functioning of the generic computer components, or to any other technology or technical field.
Step 2B: The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The only additional elements beyond the abstract idea are the circuitry and information processing terminals, which perform generic computational functions such as receiving, analyzing, and outputting data. Such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the field.
Accordingly, claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 2, the claim relates to the voice metadata being generated based on the collected sound data of a viewer during a live event. This is pre-solution activity and therefore does not add a meaningful limitation. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 3, the claim relates to the voice metadata indicating a presence or absence of sound, and counting the number of viewers emitting sound, selecting data close to that number, and generating that voice data. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 4, the claim relates to the voice metadata including a gender of each viewer and to select voice data corresponding to the gender. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 5, the claim relates to the voice metadata including information about an emotion and selecting voice data corresponding to the emotion. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 6, the claim relates to the metadata including information that is generated from an analysis of the voice sound and includes characteristics and preparing voice data to reflect the characteristics. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 7, the claim relates to the metadata including information indicating characteristics a viewer has set and preparing voice data to reflect the characteristics. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 8, the claim relates to the metadata including information indicating characteristics selected from variations prepared in advanced and selecting voice data that reflects these characteristics. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 9, the claim relates to the metadata including information indicating a volume of sound and generating voice data reflecting the volume. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 10, the claim relates to the metadata including information about a maximum volume and generating voice data reflecting the maximum volume. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 11, the claim relates to the metadata including information about a maximum sound and adjusting the maximum sound volume to a preset maximum sound volume. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 12, the claim relates to the metadata including information about a number of viewers who have emitted sound and are in the same place and selecting voice data close to the number of viewers. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 13, the claim relates to the metadata including information indicating a virtual seat area and generating voice data for the virtual seat area. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 14, the claim relates to the metadata including information indicating whether or not each sound is valid, counting a number of viewers having emitted voice sound after adopting a ratio of the number of viewers having emitted sound among viewers whose sound collection is valid as a ratio, and selecting data close to the counted number of viewers. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 15, the claim relates to the metadata including labeling information about a category, generating viewer voice data for each category, and outputting the voice data corresponding to the category. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional elements are “the circuitry” and “information processing terminal”, which are generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 16, the claim relates to the circuitry changing at least one type of volume of voice data to be generated. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 17, the claim relates to the circuitry outputting the generated voice data to a respective terminal. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional elements are “the circuitry” and “information processing terminal”, which are generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 18, the claim relates to the circuitry combining voice data acquired from a public site with voice data generated based on the metadata and outputting the combined voice data to a terminal. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional elements are “the circuitry” and “information processing terminal”, which are generic instructions to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
With respect to claim 21, the claim relates to the circuitry counting a number of viewers having emitted voice sound of each type. This is a mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or by purely mental reasoning. The only additional element is “the circuitry”, which is a generic instruction to perform the abstract idea on/using a computer and does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. No additional elements are present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shigeta et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0142767), hereinafter referred to as Shigeta.
Regarding claim 1, Shigeta discloses an information processing device (Shigeta Fig. 3) comprising: circuitry configure to acquire voice metadata indicating information regarding voice sound of at least one viewer from one or more information processing terminals in real time (Shigeta paras [0044]-[0047] and [0059]-[0060]),
perform, based on the acquired voice metadata, control to generate viewer voice data for output, using voice data prepared in advance (Shigeta paras [0070]-[0071]),
and control output of the generated viewer voice data (Shigeta para [0078]), wherein the voice metadata includes information indicating a type of the voice sound and a viewing position (Shigeta para [0088] and [0092]) of each viewer (Shigeta para [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata is generated based on a result of analysis of collected sound data of the at least one viewer, when data of an event being held is delivered in real time (Shigeta paras [0044]-[0047] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating presence or absence of the voice sound (Shigeta para [0045]),
wherein the circuitry is further configured to count a number of viewers (Shigeta para [0067]) having emitted voice sound, based the information indicating presence or absence of the voice sound (Shigeta para [0076] and "Further, the output control unit 18 may locate sound images of emotion expression data corresponding to an unspecified large number of other viewing users who are not acquainted with the viewing user 3B behind the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing users 31b)," Shigeta para [0088]),
and select voice data close to the counted number of viewers from among voice data of specific numbers of viewers prepared in advance, and wherein the circuitry generates the viewer voice data based on the selected voice data close to the counted number of viewers (Shigeta para [0076] and "Further, the output control unit 18 may locate sound images of emotion expression data corresponding to an unspecified large number of other viewing users who are not acquainted with the viewing user 3B behind the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing users 31b)," Shigeta para [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating gender of each viewer who has emitted the voice sound (Shigeta paras [0066]-[0068]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to select voice data corresponding to the gender from among gender-specific voice data prepared in advance, based on the information indicating the gender of each viewer who has emitted the voice sound (Shigeta paras [0066]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 5, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating an emotion determined from a result of analysis of the voice sound (Shigeta para [0071]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to select voice data corresponding to the emotion from among emotion-specific voice data prepared in advance, based on the information indicating the emotion (Shigeta para [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information that is generated from a result of analysis of the voice sound and indicates characteristics of the voice sound (Shigeta para [0071]-[0073]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to cause voice data prepared in advance to reflect the characteristics (Shigeta para [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating characteristics each viewer has set as characteristics of the voice sound ("Note that, which team the viewing user is supporting may be decided based on profile information of the user, by each of the client apparatuses 1 or the server 2-1, and may be able to be specifically selected by the user prior to watching a match," Shigeta para [0093]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to cause voice data prepared in advance to reflect the characteristics (Shigeta para [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 8, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating characteristics selected as characteristics of the voice sound from among characteristics variations prepared in advance ("Note that, which team the viewing user is supporting may be decided based on profile information of the user, by each of the client apparatuses 1 or the server 2-1, and may be able to be specifically selected by the user prior to watching a match," Shigeta para [0093]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to select voice data reflecting the characteristics from among voice data prepared in advance (Shigeta para [0078]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating a volume of the voice sound of each viewer, the volume of the voice sound being determined from a result of analysis of the voice sound (Shigeta para [0071]-[0073]),
and wherein the circuitry generates the viewer voice data reflecting the volume of the voice sound of each viewer (Shigeta para [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information about a number of viewers who have emitted the voice sound and are present in a same place (Shigeta para [0076] and "Further, the output control unit 18 may locate sound images of emotion expression data corresponding to an unspecified large number of other viewing users who are not acquainted with the viewing user 3B behind the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing users 31b)," Shigeta para [0088]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to select voice data close to a number of viewers from among voice data of specific numbers of viewers prepared in advance (Shigeta para [0076] and "Further, the output control unit 18 may locate sound images of emotion expression data corresponding to an unspecified large number of other viewing users who are not acquainted with the viewing user 3B behind the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing users 31b)," Shigeta para [0088]).
Regarding claim 13, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating a virtual seat area of each viewer who has emitted the voice sound (Shigeta Fig. 7),
and wherein the circuitry further generates the viewer voice data for the virtual seat area of each viewer ("Here, the output control unit 18 performs a sound image location control so as if other viewing users 31a and 31b are actually beside or behind the viewing user 3B, replicates a sense of presence, and provides a stronger empathy experience," Shigeta para [0088]).
Regarding claim 14, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes information indicating whether or not voice sound is valid (Shigeta para [0067]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to count a number of viewers having emitted voice sound after adopting a ratio of the number of viewers having emitted voice sound among respective viewers whose sound collection is valid as a ratio of a deemed number of viewers having emitted voice among respective viewers whose sound collection is invalid ("For example, there is the number of integrated users, the male-female ratio, the age distribution, the proportion of integrated emotion estimation results (for example, laughter 60%, surprise 20%, no reaction 20% or the like), the score of each emotion estimation result or the like in such statistical data," Shigeta para [0067]),
and select voice data close to the counted number of viewers having emitted voice from among voice data of specific numbers of viewers prepared in advance (Shigeta para [0076] and "Further, the output control unit 18 may locate sound images of emotion expression data corresponding to an unspecified large number of other viewing users who are not acquainted with the viewing user 3B behind the viewing user 3B (the position of the viewing users 31b)," Shigeta para [0088]).
Regarding claim 15, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the voice metadata further includes labeling information about a category to which each viewer belongs (Shigeta para [0068]),
and wherein the circuitry generates the viewer voice data for each category, and outputs the viewer voice data corresponding to the category to which each respective viewer belongs, to a respective information processing terminal of the respective viewer (Shigeta para [0068]).
Regarding claim 16, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Shigeta further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to change at least one of a type or a volume of the viewer voice data to be generated, in accordance with a scene in an event to be delivered to each viewer ("Further, the determination unit 17 may change the type of emotion expression data in accordance with a content being viewed," Shigeta para [0077] and Shigeta para [0076]).
As to claim 19, method claim 19 and system claim 1 are related as system and method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the system step. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the system claim.
As to claim 20, computer-readable medium (CRM) claim 20 and system claim 1 are related as system and CRM of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the system step. Accordingly, claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to the system claim.
Regarding claim 21, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Shigeta further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to count a number of viewers having emitted voice sound of each indicated type (Shigeta para [0067]).
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeta, in view of Murugan (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0317673).
Regarding claim 10, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. However, Shigeta fails to disclose wherein the voice metadata further includes information about a maximum sound volume for each viewer who has emitted the voice sound, and wherein the circuitry generates the viewer voice data further reflecting the maximum volume value of each viewer. Murugan teaches a remote engagement system for a live event.
Murugan teaches wherein the voice metadata further includes information about a maximum sound volume for each viewer who has emitted the voice sound (Murugan para [0050]),
and wherein the circuitry generates the viewer voice data further reflecting the maximum volume value of each viewer (Murugan para [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shigeta’s method of expressing viewer’s emotions remotely by including Murugan’s teaching of a maximum volume. When outputting audio, utilizing a maximum volume is a well-known technique within the art. It would have been obvious to incorporate this limitation of a maximum level of volume when outputting a sound, as televisions or other media devices typically have a maximum volume output associated with them.
Regarding claim 11, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. However, Shigeta fails to disclose wherein the voice metadata further includes information about a maximum sound volume for each viewer who has emitted the voice sound, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to adjust the maximum sound volume to a preset maximum sound volume setting value.
Murugan teaches wherein the voice metadata further includes information about a maximum sound volume for each viewer who has emitted the voice sound (Murugan para [0050]),
and wherein the circuitry is further configured to adjust the maximum sound volume to a preset maximum sound volume setting value (Murugan para [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shigeta’s method of expressing viewer’s emotions remotely by including Murugan’s teaching of a maximum volume. When outputting audio, utilizing a maximum volume is a well-known technique within the art. It would have been obvious to incorporate this limitation of a maximum level of volume when outputting a sound, as televisions or other media devices typically have a maximum volume output associated with them.
Regarding claim 17, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Shigeta fails to disclose wherein the circuitry outputs the generated viewer voice data to a respective information processing terminal of each respective viewer and an event site device.
Murugan teaches wherein the circuitry outputs the generated viewer voice data to a respective information processing terminal of each respective viewer and an event site device (Murugan Fig. 2 and para [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shigeta’s method of expressing viewer’s emotions remotely by including Murugan’s teaching of outputting remote audience reactions at a live event. This inclusion would allow for other’s present at the live event, as well as the performers themselves, to be stimulated and motivated by the reactions of remote viewers. This would allow for a more empathic and holistic viewing experience among all involved.
Regarding claim 18, Shigeta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Shigeta fails to disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to combine voice data acquired from a public viewing site with viewer voice data generated based on the voice metadata, and wherein the circuitry outputs the combined voice data to a respective information processing terminal of each respective viewer and an event site device.
Murugan teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to combine voice data acquired from a public viewing site with viewer voice data generated based on the voice metadata (Murugan Fig. 2 and para [0022], data output at a live event is inherently combined with voice data at the live event),
and wherein the circuitry outputs the combined voice data to a respective information processing terminal of each respective viewer and an event site device (Murugan Fig. 2 and para [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shigeta’s method of expressing viewer’s emotions remotely by including Murugan’s teaching of outputting remote audience reactions at a live event. This inclusion would allow for other’s present at the live event, as well as the performers themselves, to be stimulated and motivated by the reactions of remote viewers. This would allow for a more empathic and holistic viewing experience among all involved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0063995
US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0329881
US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0008416
US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0155671
WO2022024898A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER whose telephone number is (571)272-7062. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at (571) 272-7602. 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.
/ADAM MICHAEL WEAVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2658
/RICHEMOND DORVIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2658
Prosecution Insights