DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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/Amendments
2. With respect to 112(f) claim interpretation, the claim limitation(s) do not use a generic placeholder, thus the 112(f) claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
With respect to 101 software per se rejection towards claim 19, the amendment in claim 19 overcome the rejection, thus 101 software per se rejection towards claim 19 has been withdrawn.
With respect to 112(b) rejection towards Claim 10, the amendment in claim 1 overcome the rejection, thus 112(b) rejection towards Claim 10 has been withdrawn.
With respect to 102/103 rejection, the amendment in independent claims overcome the rejection, thus 102/103 rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to 101 abstract idea, Applicant argues on page 2 of the Remarks that “Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A-Prong 1): the feature "the emotion of the utterance of the each specified utterer is based on the composition information, and the composition information includes a sound pressure of the each voice of the acquired voices," of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as a mental process, because the claimed subject matter describes “an emotion of the utterer analyzed from the composition information of the voice." See [0035] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added). Further, the Applicant's Specification describes "the acquisition unit 131 may acquire the composition information of the voice generated by each of the plurality of utterers. That is, the acquisition unit 131 acquires a sound pressure and a pitch of the voice, a difference from an utterance voice at the normal time, or the like. For example, the acquisition unit 131 may determine the difference between the utterance voice at the normal time and a voice to be processed, using a determination model that has learned the voice of the user." See [0072] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Applicant's Specification describes "the recognition unit 133 may recognize the emotion of the utterance, on the basis of at least one of an expression of the utterer in the video, the movement of the lips, and the composition information of the voice in the utterance, in addition to the voice." See [0085] of the Applicant's Specification, as originally filed (emphasis added).
The “mental process” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed mentally or by hand with pen and paper, and examples of mental process include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Therefore, the claimed feature, in whole or in part, does not describe a mental process, as determining the emotion based on the composition information including the sound pressure cannot be performed mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
Thus, the features of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as a Mental process.”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that recognizing the emotion of the utterance based on sound pressure and pitch of each voices is a mental process. The human could determine the emotion of the utterance based on the sound pressure (loudness) and pitch of an utterance.
With respect to Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, even if one were to arrive at a conclusion satisfying the Prong One of such analysis, assuming arguendo, to which the Applicant does not concede, the Applicant submits the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation.
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that recognizing an emotion of the utterance based on the sound pressure, pitch, determining a priority of a response based on the recognized emotion and response to the recognized utterance based on the determined priority is/are mental process. Since the improvement is a part of the abstract mental process, it would not available to qualify as an improvement to technology in Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B, amended independent claim 1 recites the features that describe an unconventional activity using conventional elements to provide a solution for difficulty “to understand an intention of the utterance” and “return an appropriate response.”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEMP 2106.05.
Claim recites additional elements of a central processing unit, a device, a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The mere recitation of a central processing unit, a device, a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. The 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance indicates that adding the word “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and thus for these reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The 101 abstract idea rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
“1. (Currently Amended) An information processing device, comprising:
a Central Processing Unit (CPU) configured to:
acquire voices of a plurality of utterers, a plurality of videos of the plurality of utterers, and composition information of each voice of the acquired voices, wherein
each video of the plurality of videos images a state where a corresponding utterer of the plurality of utterers generates an utterance;
specify each utterer of the plurality of utterers, based on the acquired voices and the acquired plurality of videos;
recognize the utterance of the each specified utterer, an attribute of the each specified utterer, and an emotion of the utterance of the each specified utterer, wherein
the recognized attribute comprises one of a father in a family, a mother in the family, an older child in the family, or a younger child in the family,
the emotion of the utterance of the each specified utterer is based on the composition information, and
the composition information includes a sound pressure of the each voice of the acquired voices and a pitch of the each voice of the acquired voices;
determine a priority of a response to the recognized utterance of the each specified utterer, based on the determined emotion of the each specified utterer; and
generate the response to the recognized utterance of a specific utterer of the plurality of utterers, based on the determined priority of the response to the recognized utterance of the each specified utter, and
recognized attribute of the each specified utterer.”
The independent claims 1, 18 and 19 recite substantially the same concepts but do so in the context of a device, a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
The limitations recited in the independent claims as drafted cover mental processes. More specifically, the underlying abstract idea revolved around what happen once a human listens to a plurality of utterances, the human looks at a video to detect who is speaking and where the speaker is, determines emotion of each person based on loudness and pitch of the utterance, determine a priority of a response based on the determined emotion then the human responses to each utterance based on the determined priority.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional limitations of a central processing unit, a device, a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The additional element(s) or combination of elements such as a central processing unit, a device, a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device other than responding to speaker based on the determined priority. The mere recitation of a central processing unit, a device, a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. The paragraph [0130] discloses “[0130] The vehicle control ECU 421 includes various processors, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a micro processing unit (MPU), or the like. The vehicle control ECU 421 controls all or some of functions of the vehicle control system 411.”
As filed in the specification, the computer is listed as a general-purpose computer and are mainly used as an application thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include 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 element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further do not remedy the issues noted above. More specifically, Claim 2 recites a mental process of response to an utterance. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 3 merely define lips of the corresponding utterer are imaged in the video. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 4 recites a mental process of recognizing each utterance based on the voice or the movement of the lip of each utterer. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 5 recites a mental process of acquiring a video after detecting temperature of the utterer. Claim 5 recites CPU and sensor. The mere recitation of CPU and sensor and/or the like is akin of adding the word “apply it” and/or “use it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Claim 6 recites a mental process of recognizing attributes of the plurality of utterers on a basis of the information regarding the positions of utterers. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 7 recites a mental process of recognizing the attributes of the utterers on a basis of the composition information of each voice. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 8 recites a mental process of generating a response differently to the utterers. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 9 recites a mental process of whether to response on a basis of line of sight, a direction of lips. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 10 recites a mental process of recognizing whether or not response to utterers on a basis of at least one of content the voice, directivity of the voice and composition information of the voice. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 13 recites a mental process of determining the emotion of the utterer on a basis of an expression of the utterer in the video, a movement of lips, and composition information of the voice. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 14 recites a mental process of generating the response on a basis of the external environment information. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 15 recites a mental process of generating the response on a basis of occur of the predetermined situation. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 16 recites a mental process of generating the response on a basis of the time band or the weather. No additional limitations are presented. Claim 17 recites a mental process of generating the response on a basis of the video installed on the vehicle. No additional limitations are presented.
For at least the supra provided reasons, claims 1-10, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-10 and 13-19 are allowed in view of the prior art of record. The claims stand rejected under 101 Abstract idea, and for the application to pass to allowance this rejection need to be overcome. Any amendments to overcome the 101 rejection that results in any change in scope require further search and/or consideration in order to determine it allowability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art(s) taken alone or in combination fail(s) to teach the following element(s) in combination with the other recited elements in the claim(s).
“recognize the utterance of the each specified utterer, an attribute of the each specified utterer, and an emotion of the utterance of the each specified utterer, wherein
the recognized attribute comprises one of a father in a family, a mother in the family, an older child in the family, or a younger child in the family,
the emotion of the utterance of the each specified utterer is based on the composition information, and
the composition information includes a sound pressure of the each voice of the acquired voices and a pitch of the each voice of the acquired voices;
determine a priority of a response to the recognized utterance of the each specified utterer, based on the determined emotion of the each specified utterer; and
generate the response to the recognized utterance of a specific utterer of the plurality of utterers, based on the determined priority of the response to the recognized utterance of the each specified utter, and” as recited in Claim 1.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the similar features as Claim 1.
The closest prior arts found as following.
a. Zhu (US 2022/0217468 A1). In this reference, Zhu disclose identifying a location of a speaker and controlling audio playback of multiple loudspeakers based on the located speaker (Zhu [0006] a processor, [0051] discloses video including multiple images that are continuous in time series, person whose lips are moving, and position information of the speaker, [0056-0057] disclose separating the sound signal based on the lip movement direction of each lip mover in the video, the speaker’s location and outputting each of voice signal corresponding to each speaker, [0005] discloses a playback control module, configured to control multiple loudspeakers to play audio indicated by a corresponding voice instruction for an area where a speaker of each voice instruction is located respectively.) Zhu recognizes the lip movement based on the acquired images. In Zhu, the location and voice signal of each speaker is further combined with voice signal processing to avoid or reduce misjudgments in lip movement recognition. However, Zhu et al. does not recognize emotion of speaker, recognize an attribute of utterer, determine a priority of a response and generate the response based on the determined emotion, wherein the emotion is determined based on the sound pressure and pitch of the utterance and wherein the recognized attribute comprises one of a father in a family, a mother in the family, an older child in the family, or a younger child in the family. Thus, Zhu fails to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter.
b. Kumar et al. (US 11,954,443 B1.) In this reference, Kumar et al. disclose outputting the response to the utterance based on the priority (Kumar et al. col.9 lines 62-67 and col. 10 lines 1-4 discloses determining the emotional priority score in order to classify the service inquiry into a response order, col. 2 lines 19-30 discloses determining a response priority order for the current service inquiry based on at least the emotional priority score, col. 4 lines 44-57 disclose determining the emotion value based on a level of purposefulness of the speech of the user.) Kumar et al. determines an emotional priority score for a customer service inquiry based on the emotion factor values. Based at least in part on the emotional priority score, the computing system may further determine a severity level for the service inquiry, and classify the service inquiry into a response order for the business or organization to follow when responding to multiple service inquiries. In this way, the business or organization may prioritize service inquiries that need a more urgent response. However, Kumar et al. does not teach and/or suggest determining emotion based on the sound pressure and pitch of the voice. Kumar et al. does not recognize an attribute of utterance, wherein the recognized attribute comprises one of a father in a family, a mother in the family, an older child in the family, or a younger child in the family. Thus, Kumar et al. fail to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter.
c. Sharifi (US 2024/0067128 A1.) In this reference, Sharifi discloses assigning priority levels to users (Sharifi [0010] the mapping application may assign priority levels to users. When multiple users provide requests to the mapping application during a navigation session simultaneously, one after another, and/or within a threshold time period of each other, the mapping application may respond to the requests in order of the respective priority levels of the users. Additionally, when a request is made within a threshold time period or threshold distance of the next navigation instruction and the user's priority level is not above a threshold priority level, the mapping application may wait to respond to the request until the navigation instruction is provided if the user's priority level is below a threshold priority level. Furthermore, if a first user having a higher priority level provides a request to the mapping application while the mapping application is responding to a request from a second user having a lower priority level, the mapping application may stop responding to the second user's request and may immediately respond to the first user. On the other hand, if the first user's priority level is not above the second user's priority level, the mapping application may wait to finish responding to the second user's request before responding to the first user.) Sharifi assigns the priority level based on information in the user’s profile, and/or the important of the request. Sharifi does not assign priority level based on the emotion of the user’s utterance. Sharifi does not teach and/or suggest determining emotion based on the sound pressure and pitch of the voice. Sharifi does not recognize an attribute of utterance, wherein the recognized attribute comprises one of a father in a family, a mother in the family, an older child in the family, or a younger child in the family. Thus, Sharifi fails to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
a. Wu (US 2018/0174020 A1.) In this reference, Wu disclose systems and methods for an emotionally intelligent chat bot.
b. Cho (US 2023/0072898 A1.) In this reference, Cho disclose a method for outputting the speech suggestion on a screen adjacent to the driver’s seat in a display inside the vehicle.
c. Porta (US 2021/0127204 A1.) In this reference, Porta discloses a method for optimizing the audio capture during conference call in cars.
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUYKHANH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-6429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Andrew C. Flanders can be reached on 571-272-7516. 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.
/THUYKHANH LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights