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. In respect to 101 Abstract idea rejection, Applicant argues on page 2 of the Remark that
“Prong One: The Claims Are Not Directed to a Mental Process…The amended claims require specific technical operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind: (i) generating a plurality of sets of dialogue items across a plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction based on a preset rhythm rule, which requires computational processing to ensure rhythm conformance across multiple interaction rounds; (ii) dynamically generating text content based on dialogue interaction results; and (iii) generating and providing media content comprising an audio portion corresponding to the generated text content. These operations, taken together, involve specific computational steps that go well beyond any mental process a human could perform.”
In response, Examiner respectively notes that the limitations recited in claim as drafted cover mental processes. More specifically, a human (e.g., a composer, songwriter) listens to a conversation between a user and a virtual object. The human could write down what sentence selected by the user in each round of a conversation. Next, the human could sing to the user the selected sentence(s). Claimed language merely defines that the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. There are no technical details on how the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Next, Applicant argues on page 2 of the Remarks that
“Prong Two: The Claims Are Integrated Into a Practical Application
Even if the claims were found to recite an abstract idea under Prong One (which Applicant does not concede), the amended claims integrate any such concept into a practical application. The amended claims recite a specific technical implementation in which a virtual object in a virtual scene conducts rhythm-rule-based multi-round dialogue interaction with a user, dynamically generates text content from the dialogue interaction results, and provides corresponding audio media content. This combination of features effects a concrete improvement in virtual scene interaction technology by enabling a virtual object to generate personalized media content (e.g., a song with lyrics derived from the dialogue interaction and structured according to a preset rhythm rule) rather than merely playing pre-existing content. The improvement to virtual scene interaction experience is a technical improvement that constitutes a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
In response, Examiner respectively mentions that the human could create a personalized song for a user by using the selected sentence(s) from the user as lyric for a song, and sing the song to the user. 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 2.
Finally, Applicant argues on page 3 of the Remarks that
“The Claims Recite Significantly More
For the same reasons stated above, the amended claims also recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specific combination of rhythm-rule-based dialogue item generation across multiple rounds, dynamic text content generation based on dialogue interaction results, and audio media content creation corresponding to the text content is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art. None of the cited references, individually or in combination, demonstrates that this particular combination of features was conventional. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
In response, Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is reminded that lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 101 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and thus for these reasons, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to 101 signal per se towards claim 20, the amended claim 20 overcome the rejection. Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to 102/103 rejection, Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-8, 10-18 and 20 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
“receiving a plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction between a user and a virtual object in a virtual scene, wherein the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction comprise selection of the user for a set of dialogue items provided in each round of dialogue interaction, and a plurality of sets of dialogue items corresponding to the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule; and
providing media content associated with the virtual object, the media content at least comprising a first audio portion corresponding to text content, wherein the text content is generated based on the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction.”
The independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite substantially the same concept but do so in the context of a method, a device and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
The limitations recited in claim as drafted cover mental processes. More specifically, a human (e.g., a composer, songwriter) listens to a conversation between a user and a virtual object. The human could write down what sentence selected by the user in each round of a conversation. Next, the human could sing to the user the selected sentence(s). Claimed language merely defines that the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. There are no technical details on how the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule.
Does the claim recite the additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claims 11 and 20 recite additional elements of “at least one processing unit” and “A computing readable storage medium”. The additional element(s) or combination of elements such as at least one processing unit and a computing readable storage 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 providing a media content (e.g., a song) to the user based on the user’s selection in a conversation. The paragraph [0007 and 0085] of the specification discloses “[0007] In a fourth aspect of the present disclosure, a computer readable storage medium is provided, where the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program is executable by a processor to implement the method in the first aspect, [0085]The electronic device 500 typically includes a number of computer storage media. Such media may be any available media that are accessible by electronic device 500, including, but not limited to, volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. The memory 520 may be a volatile memory (e. g., a register, cache, random access memory (RAM)), non-volatile memory (e.g., read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory), or some combination thereof. The storage device 530 may be a removable or non-removable medium and may include a machine-readable medium such as a flash drive, a magnetic disk, or any other medium that can be used to store information and/or data (e. g., training data for training) and that can be accessed within the electronic device 500.) The claimed invention merely uses a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea of mental processes. 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.
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 as noted. 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 2-8, 10, 12-18 do not remedy the issued noted above. More specifically, claims 2 and 12 indicates the audio portion is corresponding to melody content. No additional limitations are present. Claims 3 and 13 indicates the melody content generated based on the text content. No additional limitations are present. Claims 4 and 14 recite two rounds of the conversation in order to select the media content. No additional limitations are present. Claims 5 and 15 indicates each of the dialogue item corresponds to a preset style. No additional limitations are present. Claims 6 and 16 indicates chanting content associated with the text content. No additional limitations are present. Claims 7 and 17 recites a mental process of selecting a chanting content from the chanting library. No additional limitations are present. Claims 8 and 18 recite a mental process of converting text content to the chanting content. No additional limitations are present. Claim 10 recites a mental process of suggesting a list of song based on the historical action. No additional limitations are present.
For at least the supra provided reasons, claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 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).
“receiving a plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction between a user and a virtual object in a virtual scene, wherein the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction comprise selection of the user for a set of dialogue items provided in each round of dialogue interaction, and a plurality of sets of dialogue items corresponding to the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule; and
providing media content associated with the virtual object, the media content at least comprising a first audio portion corresponding to text content, wherein the text content is generated based on the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction.” as recited in Claim 1.
Claims 11 and 20 recite the similar features as Claim 1.
The closest prior arts found as following.
a. Yim et al. (US 2024/0419677 A1.) In this reference, Yim et al. disclose a method and a system for providing the song based on the user’s selection (Yim et al. Fig. 1A Client Computing Device 11 comprises Automated Assistant 11 for receiving a user input, processing the user input and providing media content (e.g., song) to the user, [0008-00010] user provides user query (e.g., “wheel o”), the automated assistant displays the 10 search result, and user selects a particular search result indicating that a version of “wheels on the bus” performed by artist C is available for access via the music app, [0010] In response to such user selection, the version of “wheels on the bus” performed by artist C can be played to the user via the music app. The song “wheels on the bus” performed by artist C under managed of the automated assistant, thus the song is associated with the automated assistant, the song “wheel of the bus” song played is corresponding to text content of “wheel of the bus”, the text content “wheel of the bus” is generated based on the user input of “wheel o”, [0065] FIG. 1B depicts a flow chart showing cross-app search results generated based on partial user input, in accordance with various implementations. As shown in FIG. 1B, a user can provide a partial spoken utterance (or a complete spoken utterance, or other types of user input) of “Wheels on” to the client device 11. The user can provide such spoken utterance when a unified interface 1131A is displayed at the client device 11, or can provide such spoken utterance when the unified interface 1131A is not displayed. The ASR engine 111A of the client device 11 (or of the automated assistant 111 in FIG. 1A) can process the partial spoken utterance of “Wheels on” to generate a speech recognition 104 (in this case, [wheels on]) in natural language and forward the generated speech recognition 104 to the search engine 1135, [0066] Based on the speech recognition 104 (e.g., [wheels on]), the search engine 1135 can generate a cross-app search query (e.g., “search ‘wheels on’ in the central on-device repository”), and access the central on-device repository 1151 based on the cross-app search query. For instance, the search engine 1135 can search the central on-device repository 1151 to determine whether the central on-device repository 1151 includes one or more data entries (“entries”) responsive to the speech recognition 104 (e.g., [wheels on]). When the search engine 1135 determines that the central on-device repository 1151 includes one or more data entries (“entries”) responsive to the speech recognition 104 (e.g., [wheels on]), the search engine 1135 can generate one or more search results 106 (e.g., in natural language) that respectively correspond to the determined one or more data entries. When the search engine 1135 determines that the central on-device repository 1151 includes no data entry responsive to the speech recognition 104 (e.g., [wheels on]), the search engine 1135 can generate a default search result (e.g., “no result found” or any other applicable text). The user speaks a request. The speech recognition engine converts the user’s request into a text and forward the text to the search engine. The search engine presents a list to options to the user, the user selects one of the options and finally providing media content associated with the user’s request. The user selects one option in one round of dialogue. However, Yim et al. does not teach and/or suggest selection of the user in each round of dialogue interaction in a plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction. Yim et al. does not teach and/or suggest a plurality of sets of dialogue items corresponding to the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. Yim et al. does not teach providing a song comprising a first audio portion corresponding to text content, wherein the text content is generated based on the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction. Thus, Yim et al. fails to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter noted above.
b. Jehan (US 2007/0291958 A1.) In this reference, Jehan disclose a method and a system for creating a new music (Jehan [0020] The methods described herein are directed to composing new music automatically by recycling preexisting music. The methods computationally model the process of creating music using experience from listening to examples. By recycling a database of existing songs, the methods compose and perform new songs with characteristics similar to the examples. The methods are based on the signal content of music, listen to the results, and analyze the results in relation to other music, as well as recycling produced new music. The methods model the life cycle of listening, composing, and performing, turning the computer into an active musician, instead of simply being an instrument, [0125] The final goal is to automate the creation of entirely new compositions. A current method arbitrarily combines the previous applications. The system already allows us to build entire pieces with only little guidance from a user. For instance, he or she may select a set of songs that represent the source database, and a set of songs that represent the target musical structures. The system can build arbitrarily long structures, and seamlessly transition between them. It can map groups of sounds to the structures, and merge several creations via alignment and tempo curve-matching. The final outcome is a new sounding piece with apparent coherence in both the use of the sound palette, and the underlying musical structure. Due to inherent constraints of the analysis-resynthesis method, the created music is new and different from other existing music.) In this reference, the user selects a set of song that represent the source database, and a set of songs that represent the target musical structures. The system creates the new music by recycling preexisting music. Jehan does not teach receiving selection of the user in each round of dialogues interactions in a plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction between a user and a virtual object. However, Jehan does not teach and/or suggest a plurality of sets of dialogue items corresponding to the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. Jehan does not teach providing a new music comprising a first audio portion corresponding to text content, wherein the text content is generated based on the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction. Thus, Jehan fails to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter noted above.
c. Song et al. (US 2006/0230910 A1.) In this reference, Song et al. disclose a method and a system for generating a music file (Song et al. [0012] In accordance with another embodiment of the present invention, a music composing device includes a user interface for receiving a melody from a user, a melody generator for generating a melody file corresponding to the received melody, and a chord detector for detecting chord for each bar of melody represented by the melody file. The music composing device may further include an accompaniment generator for generating a harmony/rhythm accompaniment file corresponding to the received melody and based upon the detected chord, and a music generator for generating a music file by synthesizing the melody file and the harmony/rhythm accompaniment file, [0013] In one aspect, the chord detector of the music composing device includes a bar dividing unit for analyzing the received melody and generating dividing bars according to previously assigned beats, and a melody analyzing unit for dividing sounds of the received melody into a predetermined number of notes and assigning weight values to each of the predetermined number of notes. The chord detector may also include a key analyzing unit for determining major/minor mode of the received melody to generate key information, and a chord selecting unit for mapping chords corresponding to the dividing bars based upon the key information and the weight values of each of the predetermined number of notes.) In this reference, Song et al. receives a melody from a user in order to generating a music file. However, Song et al. does not teach and/or suggest generating a music file based on selection of the user in each round of dialogues interactions in a plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction between a user and a virtual object. Song et al. does not teach and/or suggest a plurality of sets of dialogue items corresponding to the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. Song et al. does not teach generating a music file comprising a first audio portion corresponding to text content, wherein the text content is generated based on the plurality of rounds of dialogue interaction. Thus, Song et al. fails to teach and/or suggest the allowable subject matter noted above.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
a. Hansen et al. (US 2024/0146776 A1.) In this reference, Hansen et al. disclose the digital assistant enables a user select a song.
b. Irani et al. (US 10,496,705 B1.) In this reference, Irani et al. disclose a method and a system enabling a user select and play a song.
c. Serletic, II et al. (US 2019/0147838 A1.) In this reference, Serletic, II et al. disclose a method and a system for generating animated multimedia compositions.
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