DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on March 18, 2026, claims 2-21 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendment filed 09/23/2026. In this action Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHA et al. (US Pub. No. 20140195243) in view of ONO (US Pub. No. 20180315085). The CHA et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of receiving a user input, wherein the user input comprises a search query including a reference to a video content item.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 8, applicant argues “The Examiner classified "generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database" as a mental process "capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating voice output." Office Action at 12. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Speech synthesis using stored digital voice profiles requires computational algorithms, including diphone synthesis, formant synthesis, hidden Markov model-based synthesis, and deep learning neural networks. See Specification at 1 44. These are technological processes fundamentally incapable of being performed in the human mind. A human cannot mentally execute speech synthesis algorithms on stored digital voice profile data to generate audio output.”
Examiner’s Reply:
Determining, identifying, and generating steps are performed in the human mind by using computer as a tool. Choosing a referential voice to synthesize from is made possible because of the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 10, applicant argues “The claims as a whole produce a specific technological solution to a technological problem. The claims recite limitations related to contextually relevant voice output synthesized using a performer's voice profile identified from a specialized database in response to a search query referencing a video content item. This is a concrete improvement to interactive searching tools, which previously used only "a single (or perhaps a few) predetermined voice(s)" that "can therefore be quite monotone or robotic." Specification at 1 3. The Office Action dismisses each element individually as either "insignificant extra solution activity" (Office Action at 12-13) or "generic processor/component' (Office Action at 14) without analyzing the ordered combination as a whole, as required by the 2019 PEG and the Kim Memo.”
Examiner’s Reply:
The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for outputting a search result using a synthesized voice (the computer is being used as a generic tool to perform said synthesizing). Synthesizing itself is an additional element. Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claims is generally linking it to a computer environment, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 9, applicant argues “At Step 2A Prong 1, the Office Action struck through "querying a voice profile database to" from the claim, effectively removing the technological element to make the remainder appear mental. Office Action at 12. For claim 12, the Office Action similarly struck through "query the voice profile database." Office Action at 13-14. A human cannot mentally query a structured voice profile database comprising voice profiles linked to video content items and performer-cast associations. The Kim Memo explicitly cautions examiners against this "apply it" approach of stripping away technological elements to characterize claims as mental processes.”
Examiner’s Reply:
A human would have been able to use a computer as a tool in order to query a voice profile database in order to identify a performer that was relevant to the referenced video.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 10, applicant argues “The Office Action's Step 2B analysis states only that the claims "does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more" without providing factual evidence that the claimed combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Office Action at 13, 15. Under Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Examiner bears the burden of providing such evidence at Step 2B. No such evidence was provided. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III).”
Examiner’s Reply:
Querying a database that understands the context of said query with a provided vocal response is WURC as noted by myriad search engines and assistants provided along with them such as Google’s BERT and several other smart assistant’s (Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Apple Siri, and others use AI voice queries for search, navigation, shopping, and smart home control). These assistants use voice synthesizing technology which is also WURC to have a computer personalize synthetic speech using sampling in order to target a response.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12093312. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12093312 contain every element of claims 2-21 of the instant application and as such anticipates claims 2-21 of the instant application.
The difference between the inventions as recited in claim 1 of ‘751 application and ‘312 patent is that claim 1 of ‘312 patent recites determining that the input includes a reference to a video content item.
A person of ordinary skills would therefore be motivated to remove/modify some of the claim elements recited in the above two claims without affecting the context of the invention, i.e., machine learning classification. The dependent claims incorporate the differences indicated above and are considered obvious variants under the above rationale, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Appl. No. 18809751
Patent No. 12093312
2. A method comprising:
receiving an input, wherein the user input comprises a search query including a reference to a video content item;
querying a voice profile database to identify a voice performer related to the input, wherein the voice profile database comprises a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers, and the voice profile database comprises, for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of;
determining that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer; and
based on (a) identifying the voice performer related to the input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving input;
determining that the input includes a reference to a video content item;
in response to determining that the input includes the reference to the video content item:
querying a voice profile database to identify a voice performer included in a cast of the video content item referenced in the input, wherein the voice profile database comprises a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers, and the voice profile database comprises, for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of;
determining that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer; and
in response to (a) identifying the voice performer included in the cast of the video content item referenced in the input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the database.
12. A system comprising:
a voice profile database comprising:
a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers; and
for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of; control circuitry configured to:
receive an input, wherein the user input comprises a search query including a reference to a video content item;
query the voice profile database to identify a voice performer related to the input;
determine that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer; and
based on (a) identifying the voice performer related to the input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generate output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database.
11. A system comprising:
a voice profile database:
control circuitry configured to: receive input; determine that the input includes a reference to a video content item;
in response to determining that the input includes the reference to the video content item:
query the voice profile database to identify a voice performer included in a cast of the video content item referenced in the input, wherein the voice profile database comprises a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers, and the voice profile database comprises, for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of;
determine that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer; and
in response to (a) identifying the voice performer included in the cast of the video content item referenced in the input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generate output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the database.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 2 and 12 There is no support for “…a video content item”. With respect to claims 11 and 21, There is no support for “…sounscape”.
With respect to claims 11 and 21, There is no support for “…soundscape”.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-13, 16, 18-20 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 2-11) and system (claims 12-21) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 2 and 12 are directed towards the Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 2 recite(s) the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
determining that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a voice profile); and
based on (a) identifying the voice performer related to the input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating voice output).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 2:
receiving a user input, wherein the user input comprises a search query including a reference to a video content item (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering);
querying a voice profile database
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 12 recite(s) the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes:
determine that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating voice output); and
based on (a) identifying the voice performer related to the input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generate output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating voice output).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 2:
a voice profile database (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function)comprising:
a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function); and
for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function);
control circuitry (i.e., as a generic processor/component performing a generic computer function) configured to:
receive a user input (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering);
query the voice profile database
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining a textual form of the output, the textual form including a plurality of words (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining an output); and
generating the output as an audio output based on the synthesized audio (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating an output).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
synthesizing, using the voice profile of the identified voice performer, audio matching at least a portion of the plurality of words (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to synthesizing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein when the classification denotes a response containing the block content, the data collection request is re-submitted as a subsequent request (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to re-submitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining, based on the voice profile of the identified voice performer, a characteristic of the voice of the identified voice performer (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a voice characteristic);
identifying a plurality of audio templates, wherein each audio template of the plurality of audio templates corresponds to a respective word of the plurality of words (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a template);
modifying each audio template of the plurality of audio templates based on the characteristic of the voice of the identified voice performer (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to modifying a template); and
generating audio corresponding to each modified audio template (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generate audio).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
identifying an audio recording of the voice of the identified voice performer (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying audio).
wherein the audio recording includes at least one of the plurality of words, and wherein the generating of the audio output is performed based on the synthesized audio and the audio recording (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by generating audio).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
identifying one or more words of the plurality of words that are not included in the audio recording (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by identifying words).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein synthesizing the audio matching at least the portion of the plurality of words comprises synthesizing audio corresponding to the one or more words of the plurality of words that are not included in the audio recording (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to submit data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
generating the output based at least in part on the audio recording (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by generate an output).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
retrieving, from the voice profile database, an audio recording of the identified voice performer (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to retrieving voice data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 18:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining the voice performer provides a voice of the character (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a voice performer).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
retrieving, from the voice profile database, an indication of a character associated with the video content item (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to retrieving indication data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the identified voice performer corresponds to a character in the video content item, and an indication of the character is included in a title of the video content item (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a performer).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10 and 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the user input comprises a query related to the video content item and the output responds to the query related to the video content item (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to retrieving data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
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) 2-3, 5-6, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHA et al. (US Pub. No. 20140195243) in view of ONO (US Pub. No. 20180315085).
With respect to claim 2, CHA et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving a user input, wherein the user input comprises a search query including a reference to a video content item (Paragraph 197 discloses it is assumed that the text "When is XXX (i.e., broadcast program name) on?" is received from the display apparatus 100). Cha et al. does not disclose querying a voice profile database…; determining that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile…; generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer.
ONO discloses querying a voice profile database to identify a voice performer related to the input, wherein the voice profile database comprises a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers, and the voice profile database comprises, for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of (Paragraph 51 discloses a phoneme database (DB) corresponding to one or more agents and can generate response voice through the voice of a specific agent. Herein, the agent may be a character of a cartoon, an animation, a game, a drama, or a movie, an entertainer, a celebrity, a historical person, or the like).
determining that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer (Paragraph 71 discloses determines whether a predetermined number of pairs of question sentences and answer sentences (also referred to as conversation data) are collected);
based on (a) identifying the voice performer related to the user input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database (Paragraph 51 discloses generates response voice to spoken voice collected and transmitted by the client terminal 1 and transmits the response voice to the client terminal 1. The agent server 2 includes a phoneme database (DB) corresponding to one or more agents and can generate response voice through the voice of a specific agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control with ONO’s communication system. This would have improved answering a user’s question by providing a voice response.
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 3, CHA et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein generating the output comprises:
determining a textual form of the output, the textual form including a plurality of words (“speech synthesis,” See Column Lines 40-47);
synthesizing, using the voice profile of the identified voice performer, audio matching at least a portion of the plurality of words (Paragraph 51 discloses generates response voice to spoken voice collected and transmitted by the client terminal 1 and transmits the response voice to the client terminal 1. The agent server 2 includes a phoneme database (DB) corresponding to one or more agents and can generate response voice through the voice of a specific agent); and
generating the output as an audio output based on the synthesized audio (Paragraph 51 discloses a phoneme database (DB) corresponding to one or more agents and can generate response voice through the voice of a specific agent. Herein, the agent may be a character of a cartoon, an animation, a game, a drama, or a movie, an entertainer, a celebrity, a historical person, or the like).
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 3. With respect to claim 5, ONO teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
identifying an audio recording of the voice of the identified voice performer, wherein the audio recording includes at least one of the plurality of words, and wherein the generating of the audio output is performed based on the synthesized audio and the audio recording (Paragraph 82 discloses the phoneme DB generation unit 60 records voice reading the example sentence (step S116) and analyzes the recorded voice (step S119)). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 3 provided above, combining the CHA et al. reference and the ONO reference is applicable to dependent claim 5.
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 5. With respect to claim 6, ONO teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising:
identifying one or more words of the plurality of words that are not included in the audio recording (Paragraph 82 discloses the phoneme DB generation unit 60 records voice reading the example sentence (step S116) and analyzes the recorded voice (step S119));
wherein synthesizing the audio matching at least the portion of the plurality of words comprises synthesizing audio corresponding to the one or more words of the plurality of words that are not included in the audio recording (Paragraph 82 discloses the phoneme DB generation unit 60 records voice reading the example sentence (step S116) and analyzes the recorded voice (step S119)). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 5 provided above, combining the CHA et al. reference and the ONO reference is applicable to dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 12, CHA et al. teaches a system comprising:
a voice profile database (Paragraph 150 discloses a corpus database per service domains. The corpus database may take the form in which sample sentences and response to the same are stored) comprising:
control circuitry (Paragraph 299 discloses a circuit) configured to:
receive a user input, wherein the user input comprises a search query including a reference to a video content item (Paragraph 197 discloses it is assumed that the text "When is XXX (i.e., broadcast program name) on?" is received from the display apparatus 100). Cha et al. does not disclose querying a voice profile database…; determining that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile…; generating output in a voice of the identified voice performer.
ONO discloses querying a voice profile database to identify a voice performer related to the input, wherein the voice profile database comprises a plurality of voice profiles of a plurality of voice performers, and the voice profile database comprises, for each respective voice performer of the plurality of voice performers, an indication of a video content item that the respective voice performer is included in a cast of (Paragraph 51 discloses a phoneme database (DB) corresponding to one or more agents and can generate response voice through the voice of a specific agent. Herein, the agent may be a character of a cartoon, an animation, a game, a drama, or a movie, an entertainer, a celebrity, a historical person, or the like).
determine that the voice profile database comprises a voice profile of the identified voice performer (Paragraph 71 discloses determines whether a predetermined number of pairs of question sentences and answer sentences (also referred to as conversation data) are collected);
based on (a) identifying the voice performer related to the user input and (b) determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer:
generate output in a voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer stored at the voice profile database (Paragraph 51 discloses generates response voice to spoken voice collected and transmitted by the client terminal 1 and transmits the response voice to the client terminal 1. The agent server 2 includes a phoneme database (DB) corresponding to one or more agents and can generate response voice through the voice of a specific agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control with ONO’s communication system. This would have improved answering a user’s question by providing a voice response.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 15, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5, because claim 15 is substantially equivalent to claim 5.
With respect to claim 16, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 6, because claim 16 is substantially equivalent to claim 6.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHA et al. (US Pub. No. 20140195243) in view of ONO (US Pub. No. 20180315085) in further view of Lyren (US Pub. No. 20140359439).
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 3. With respect to claim 4, CHA et al. as modified by ONO does not disclose determining, based on the voice profile of the identified voice performer, a characteristic…; identifying a plurality of audio templates, …; modifying each audio template of the plurality of audio templates …; generating audio corresponding to each modified audio template.
However, Lyren teaches wherein synthesizing, using the voice profile of the identified voice performer, audio matching at least the portion of the plurality of words comprises:
determining, based on the voice profile of the identified voice performer, a characteristic of the voice of the identified voice performer (See Lyren Paragraph 60 “determine his personal preferences and style of verbal and nonverbal communication preferences. These aspects of the celebrity are combined to replicate a personality of the celebrity, and this personality is implemented into an intelligent personal assistant. This intelligent personal assistant is then sold to or provided to users (such as consumers, purchasers, or third parties) such that the intelligent personal assistant executes on personal electronic devices of the users to assist the users in executing tasks. This intelligent personal assistant has a voice, an appearance (such as being an anthropomorphic agent), and mannerisms that emulate the voice, appearance, and mannerisms of the celebrity”);
identifying a plurality of audio templates, wherein each audio template of the plurality of audio templates corresponds to a respective word of the plurality of words (See Lyren Paragraphs 118-121 “verbally communicated (such as word choices, enunciation, writing style, tone, pauses, emphasis, and loudness)”);
modifying each audio template of the plurality of audio templates based on the characteristic of the voice of the identified voice performer (See Lyren Paragraph 157 “Personality settings of the user agent during a first sequence of simulations result in a ninety percent (90%) accuracy score for the user. During the simulation, adjustments are made to a personality of the user agent in order to improve performance of the user (such as improving the speed and the accuracy at which targets are selected and destroyed). These personality settings are modified to make the user agent slightly more secure, aggressive, friendly, and authoritative. After the adjustments, a second sequence of simulations is performed. Personality settings of the user agent during this second sequence of simulations result in a ninety percent (92%) accuracy score for the user. These personality settings are saved and matched to the user”); and
generating audio corresponding to each modified audio template (See Lyren Paragraph 62 “The preferences of the user agent are changed or adjusted to match the preferences of the user. Verbal and nonverbal communication preferences with different emotions of the user agent match the verbal and nonverbal communication preferences with different emotions of the user. This adjusting can occur in real-time while the user interacts with the user agent. Over time, a personality of the user agent more closely matches a personality of the user since verbal and nonverbal communication preferences of the user agent are continuously, continually, or periodically changed to match the verbal and nonverbal communication preferences of the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control and ONO’s communication system with Lyren’s user agent. This would have improved interfacing.
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 7, CHA et al. as modified by ONO does not disclose retrieving, from the voice profile database, an audio recording of the identified voice performer...; generating the output based at least in part on the audio recording.
However, Lyren teaches the method of claim 51, wherein generating the output in the voice of the identified voice performer using the voice profile of the identified voice performer comprises:
retrieving, from the voice profile database, an audio recording of the identified voice performer (See Lyren Paragraph 121 “audio showing how the deceased person verbally communicated”); and
generating the output based at least in part on the audio recording (See Paragraph 120 “personality of the deceased person can be inferred, predicted, extracted, extrapolated, determined, generated, and/or obtained from the information”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control and ONO’s communication system with Lyren’s user agent. This would have improved interfacing.
With respect to claim 14, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 4, because claim 14 is substantially equivalent to claim 4.
With respect to claim 17, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 7, because claim 17 is substantially equivalent to claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHA et al. (US Pub. No. 20140195243) in view of ONO (US Pub. No. 20180315085) in further view of Stevans et al. (US Pub. No. 20180108343).
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 8, CHA et al. as modified by ONO does not disclose retrieving, from the voice profile database, an indication of a character associated with the video content item identified by the reference to the video content item; determining the voice performer provides a voice of the character.
However, Stevans et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining that the voice profile database comprises the voice profile of the identified voice performer comprises:
retrieving, from the voice profile database, an indication of a character associated with the video content item identified by the reference to the video content item (See Paragraph 45 “Dialog system 601 receives wake-up phrase and request audio and produces response audio. It comprises various system functions 602 that takes in the wake-up phrase and request audio. The system functions 602 configure parameters related to TTS, which is on a per-request basis, and produces response text and a signal indicating the ID of the wake-up phrase. TTS system 603 receives the response text and wake-up phrase. Based on the wake-up phrase, it chooses one of a plurality of TTS voices 604”); and
determining the voice performer provides a voice of the character (See Paragraph 43 “For an assistant plugin for The Simpsons.TM. it might be logical to use the voice of Nancy Cartwright, the voice actor who plays the cartoon character, Bart Simpson, as long as the copyright holder would agree to license the rights”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control and ONO’s communication system with Stevans et al.’s virtual assistant. This would have improved speech recognition.
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 9, CHA et al. as modified by ONO does not disclose retrieving, from the voice profile database, an indication of a character associated with the video content item identified by the reference to the video content item.
However, Stevans et al. teaches the method of claim 51, wherein the identified voice performer corresponds to a character in the video content item, and an indication of the character is included in a title of the video content item (See Paragraph 43 “For an assistant plugin for The Simpsons.TM. it might be logical to use the voice of Nancy Cartwright, the voice actor who plays the cartoon character, Bart Simpson, as long as the copyright holder would agree to license the rights”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control and ONO’s communication system with Stevans et al.’s virtual assistant. This would have improved speech recognition.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 8, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 8.
With respect to claim 19, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 9, because claim 19 is substantially equivalent to claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHA et al. (US Pub. No. 20140195243) and ONO (US Pub. No. 20180315085) in further view of Agrawal et al. (US Pub. No. 20170374176).
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 10, CHA et al. as modified by ONO does not disclose wherein the input comprises a request to engage in a trivia game and the output is a trivia prompt associate with the trivia game.
However, Agrawal et al. teaches wherein the user input comprises a query related to the video content item and the output responds to the query related to the video content item (See Paragraph 38 discloses user experiences may include watching a trailer for the movie on the device 110, reading a biography of the movie director, and playing a trivia game dealing with action movies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control and ONO’s communication system with Agrawal.’s digital assistant. This would have improved interfacing with media.
With respect to claim 20, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 10, because claim 20 is substantially equivalent to claim 10.
Claim(s) 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHA et al. (US Pub. No. 20140195243) and ONO (US Pub. No. 20180315085) in further view of High et al. (US Pub. No. 20180068357).
The CHA et al. reference as modified by ONO teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 11, CHA et al. as modified by ONO does not disclose wherein the output is a soundscape associated the video content item.
However, High et al. teaches wherein the output is a soundscape associated the video content item (See Paragraph 103 discloses For a person that likes a particular actor, musician, or celebrity, the system may select a similar voice for communications with that customer. For a person that with a particular music genre preference, the system may select ringtones and response tones associated with the music genre. In some embodiments, the system may determine a volume level for sounds to get the attention of the customer. In some embodiments, customer location and preferences may be used to configure sounds to play to the customer. For example, when a customer who likes movies walks by the electronics section of a store, an MTU may make a comment, tell a joke, play music, or use a particular voice to remind the customer that he/she may need to buy something).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify CHA et al.’s display control and ONO’s communication system with High et al.’s audio system This would have improved assisting user’s through improved audio communication.
With respect to claim 21, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 11, because claim 21 is substantially equivalent to claim 11.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB No. 20200265829 is directed to a personalized custom synthetic speech: Paragraph 4 discloses A first embodiment of the present disclosure provides a computer-implemented method comprising the steps of receiving a request to deliver voiced content to a user; analyzing user profile data associated with the user; recommending a voice based on analysis of the user profile, wherein the recommended voice is contextually applicable to the user; transcribing the voiced content into text; conditioning a neural network using a voice sample of the recommended voice to synthesize a waveform comprising artificial speech reciting the text of the voiced content in an artificially created voice indistinguishable from the recommended voice; synthesizing a modified version of the voiced content comprising the waveform; and delivering the modified version of the voiced content to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/BORIS GORNEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
