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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority Acknowledgment
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application CN 202310755812.6 filed on 06/25/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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
“1. An interaction method, comprising:
receiving at least one round of dialogue interaction between a user and a virtual object in a virtual scene, wherein the at least one round of dialogue interaction comprises selection of the user for a set of dialogue items provided in each round of dialogue interaction; 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 at least one round of dialogue interaction.”
Claims 11 and 20 recites the similar features as Claim 1.
The limitations recited in claim as drafted cover mental processes. More specifically, a human could present a user with a list of song, and the human could sing the song based on the user’s selection.
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. 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 2-10, 12-19 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. Claims 9 and 19 indicates that a plurality of sets of dialogue items are generated based on a preset rhythm rule. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 is directed to “A computer-readable storage medium having stored a computer program which…” However, the recitation of the medium in the specification is not exclusory with respect to non-statutory medium types (Specification [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.) Additionally, variations of the term “storage” are not necessarily considered to limit a media claim to non-transitory embodiments because content may be considered to be stored on a signal during propagation and because many disclosures conflate storage media and signals.
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim(s) as a whole would include non-statutory mediums such as carrier waves. As per the USPTO notice signed by director David Kappos on 1/26/2010: “The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO.” See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The claims as a whole therefore include(s) signal-based mediums. A signal does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because it is an ephemeral, transient signal and thus is non-statutory. Since the claims as a whole include these non-statutory instances, Claim 20 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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)(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.
8. Claims 1-3, 6, 10-13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Yim et al. (US 2024/0419677 A1.)
With respect to Claim 1, Yim et al. disclose
An interaction method, comprising:
receiving at least one round of dialogue interaction between a user and a virtual object in a virtual scene, wherein the at least one round of dialogue interaction comprises selection of the user for a set of dialogue items provided in each round of dialogue interaction (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); 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 at least one round of dialogue interaction (Yim et al. [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”.)
With respect to Claim 2, Yim et al. disclose
wherein the media content further comprises a second audio portion corresponding to melody content (Yim et al. [0010] the song “wheels on the bus” played is a melody content.)
With respect to Claim 3, Yim et al. disclose
wherein the melody content comprises:
first melody content generated based on the text content ; or
second melody content selected from a preset melody library (Yim et al. [0010] the song “Wheel on the bus” is selected from the music app.)
With respect to Claim 6, Yim et al. disclose
wherein the first audio portion comprises chanting content associated with the text content (Yim et al. [0010] the song of “Wheel of the bus” has the lyrics of “round and round, round and round.)
With respect to Claim 10, Yim et al disclose
wherein the set of dialogue items provided in each round of dialogue interaction is further generated based on a historical interaction between the user and a target object (Yim et al. [0050] the automated assistant identifies and displays some suggestions based on the historical interaction) and/or at least one piece of description information associated with the user in the virtual scene.
With respect to Claim 11, claim 11 recites the similar features as claim 1, thus claim 11 is rejected as the same ground of claim 1. Yim et al. disclose an electronic device to implement a method of providing a media content at paragraphs [0077 and 0092.]
With respect to Claim 12, claim 12 recites the similar features as claim 2, thus claim 12 is rejected as the same ground of claim 2.
With respect to Claim 13, claim 13 recites the similar features as claim 3, thus claim 13 is rejected as the same ground of claim 3.
With respect to Claim 16, claim 16 recites the similar features as claim 6, thus claim 16 is rejected as the same ground of claim 6.
With respect to Claim 20, claim 20 recites the similar features as claim 1, thus claim 20 is rejected as the same ground of claim 1. Yim et al. disclose a computer readable storage medium storing instruction executable by a processor to perform a method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Yim et al. (US 2024/0419677 A1) in view of Bove, JR. et al. (US 2023/0314801 A1.)
With respect to Claim 4, Yim et al. disclose all the limitations of Claim 1 upon which Claim 4 depends. Yim et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the at least one round of dialogue interaction at least comprises
a first round of dialogue interaction and a second round of dialogue interaction, the first round of dialogue interaction comprises: controlling the virtual object to provide a first sentence, and receiving a selection of the user for a first dialogue item in a first set of dialogue items, the first dialogue item indicating a candidate reply to the first sentence,
the second round of dialogue interaction comprises: controlling the virtual object to provide a second sentence, and receiving a second selection of the user for a second dialogue item in a second set of dialogue items, the second dialogue item indicating a candidate reply to the second sentence,
wherein the second sentence and/or the second set of dialogue items are generated based on the selected first dialogue item in the first set of dialogue items.
However, Bove, JR. et al. teach
wherein the at least one round of dialogue interaction at least comprises
a first round of dialogue interaction and a second round of dialogue interaction, the first round of dialogue interaction comprises: controlling the virtual object to provide a first sentence, and receiving a selection of the user for a first dialogue item in a first set of dialogue items, the first dialogue item indicating a candidate reply to the first sentence (Bove, JR. et al. Fig. 2 user clicks scroll wheel one detent, the menu provides a list of options to the user for selecting, [0003] the scroll wheel can be used in a natural-feeling way to navigate among and select items such as streaming sources, songs, text messages, alerts/notifications, weather forecasts, and other items stacked in dept),
the second round of dialogue interaction comprises: controlling the virtual object to provide a second sentence, and receiving a second selection of the user for a second dialogue item in a second set of dialogue items, the second dialogue item indicating a candidate reply to the second sentence (Bove, JR. et al. [0008] a sub-menu provides a list of menu to the user and the user uses a sub-menu to select a particular artist or song),
wherein the second sentence and/or the second set of dialogue items are generated based on the selected first dialogue item in the first set of dialogue items (Bove, JR. et al. [0003 and 0008] the second selection is following the first selection).
Yim et al. and Bove, JR. et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Speech Processing techniques and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of providing a song based on the user’s selection as taught by Yim et al., using teaching of the displaying the menu and the submenu as taught by Bove, JR. et al. for the benefit of enabling the user select a particular artist or song after select the music app (Bove, JR. et al. Fig. 6.)
With respect to Claim 5, Yim et al. in view of Bove, JR. et al. teach
wherein the first round of dialogue items or the second round of dialogue items comprises a plurality of dialogue items, and each dialogue item of the plurality of dialogue items corresponds to a different preset style (Bove, JR. et al. Fig. 6 the candidate rely in the first round of dialogue items are weather, podcast, music and messages, the candidate rely in the second round of dialogue are Byrds, Bread, Bee Gees, Beatles and Beach Boys. Each of dialogue items is corresponding to a different style/manner/way.)
With respect to Claim 14, claim 14 recites the similar features as claim 4, thus claim 14 is rejected as the same ground of claim 4.
With respect to Claim 15, claim 15 recites the similar features as claim 5, thus claim 15 is rejected as the same ground of claim 5.
11. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Yim et al. (US 2024/0419677 A1) in view of Soman et al. (US 2022/0329881 A1.)
With respect to Claim 7, Yim et al. disclose all the limitations of Claim 6 upon which Claim 7 depends. Yim et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the chanting content comprises a target chanting content selected from a preset chanting content library and matching the text content.
However, Soman et al. teach
wherein the chanting content comprises a target chanting content selected from a preset chanting content library and matching the text content (Soman et al. [0036] for selecting one or more chants from a chant repository based on the aggregated viewer interaction data and real-time event data, such as a live audio feed received from event venues, [0043] disclose viewer interaction data includes a text messages from the viewer.)
Yim et al. and Soman et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Speech Processing techniques and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of providing a song based on the user’s selection as taught by Yim et al., using teaching of the chant repository as taught by Soman et al. for the benefit of selecting a proper chant from a chant repository (Soman et al. [0036] for selecting one or more chants from a chant repository based on the aggregated viewer interaction data and real-time event data, such as a live audio feed received from event venues, [0043] disclose viewer interaction data includes a text messages from the viewer.)
With respect to Claim 17, claim 17 recites the similar features as claim 7, thus claim 17 is rejected as the same ground of claim 7.
12. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Yim et al. (US 2024/0419677 A1) in view of Van Der Ploeg et al. (US 2023/0351990 A1.)
With respect to Claim 8, Yim et al. disclose all the limitations of Claim 6 upon which Claim 8 depends. Yim et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the chanting content is generated by converting the text content into audio content.
However, Van Der Ploeg et al. teach
wherein the chanting content is generated by converting the text content into audio content (Van Der Ploeg et al. [0125] A second patterned musical message may be executed to generate a chanted input using the text input for a certain phrase from the text input.)
Yim et al. and Van Der Ploeg et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Speech Processing techniques and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of providing a song based on the user’s selection as taught by Yim et al., using teaching of the conversion as taught by Van Der Ploeg et al. for the benefit of generating the chant in the musical message (Van Der Ploeg et al. [0125] A second patterned musical message may be executed to generate a chanted input using the text input for a certain phrase from the text input.)
With respect to Claim 18, claim 18 recites the similar features as claim 8, thus claim 18 is rejected as the same ground of claim 8.
13. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Yim et al. (US 2024/0419677 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0330715 A1.)
With respect to Claim 9, Yim et al. disclose all the limitations of Claim 6 upon which Claim 8 depends. Yim et al. fail to explicitly teach
wherein the at least one round of dialogue interaction comprises a plurality of rounds 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.
However, Lee teaches
wherein the at least one round of dialogue interaction comprises a plurality of rounds 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 (Lee Fig. 1 Conversion Server, [0266] the conversion server receives the foreign language and output a rhythm image on the foreign language and the native language based on a preset rhythm rule.)
Yim et al. and Lee et al. are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in the Speech Processing techniques and applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of providing a song based on the user’s selection as taught by Yim et al., using teaching of the preset rhythm rule as taught by Lee et al. for the benefit of producing the rhythm image on foreign language and the native language (Lee Fig. 1 Conversion Server, [0266] the conversion server receives the foreign language and output a rhythm image on the foreign language and the native language based on a preset rhythm rule.)
With respect to Claim 19, claim 19 recites the similar features as claim 9, thus claim 19 is rejected as the same ground of claim 9.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’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.
15. 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