DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is responsive to the Application filed on 8/22/2024. Claims 1-2,5, and 7 are pending in the case. Claims 3-4, 6, and 8 have been cancelled.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2, 5 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of co-pending Application No. 18/840,566 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 5, and 7 of the instant application contain every element of claims 1-8 of Co-pending Application 18/840566. The differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all elements that differ.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/840504
Co-pending Application 18/840566
Claim 1. A learning device comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
acquire speech data of a speaker, information on the speaker, conversation data of a listener, and information on the listener; and
create a learned model of estimating a quick response of the listener to a conversation of the speaker using the information acquired with a quick response included in the conversation data of the listener as correct answer data.
Claims 5 and 7 are substantially the same as claim 1.
Claim 1. A learning device comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
acquire speech data of a speaker, information on the speaker, conversation data of a listener, information on the listener, and emotion information of the listener; and
create a learned model of estimating a quick response of the listener to a conversation of the speaker using the acquired information with a quick response included in the conversation data of the listener as correct answer data.
Claims 3,5-8 are substantially the same as claim 1.
2. The learning device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire any one or more of an expression, a motion, and voice of the speaker as the information on the speaker, and acquire any one or more of the expression, the motion, and the voice of the speaker as the information on the listener.
2. The learning device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire any one or more of an expression, a motion, and voice of the speaker as the information on the speaker, and acquire any one or more of the expression, the motion, and the voice of the speaker as the information on the listener.
Claim 4 is substantially the same as claim 2.
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 1-2,5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims 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. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining a quick response, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, “acquire speech data of a speaker, information on the speaker, conversation data of a listener, and information on the listener; and create a learned model of estimating a quick response of the listener to a conversation of the speaker using the information acquired with a quick response included in the conversation data of the listener as correct answer data” as drafted cover a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind). For example, the limitation, “acquire speech data of a speaker, information on the speaker, conversation data of a listener, information on the listener” a user can obtain information/data of a speaking user and the limitation “create a learned model of estimating a quick response of the listener to a conversation of the speaker using the acquired information with a quick response included in the conversation data of the listener as correct answer data” can be done by determining how to respond to the user based on the obtained information/data. The “circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/processor device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component See MPEP2106.05(f) mere instruction to apply an exception. Thus, the present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishman et al. (US 20220093101 A1, hereinafter Krishman).
As to independent claim 1, Krishman discloses a learning device comprising:
processing circuitry (“The device 110 may further include circuitry” paragraph 0081) configured to:
acquire speech data of a speaker (“The device 110 may include audio capture component(s), such as a microphone or array of microphones of a device 110, captures audio 11 and creates corresponding audio data.” Paragraph 0060), information on the speaker (“an emotional state of the user (for example determined by sentiment detection component 275, etc.”, paragraph 0293), conversation data of a listener (dialog of users, paragraph 0155), and information on the listener (“information relevant to an ongoing user-to-user conversation.”, see paragraph 0341-0342); and
create a learned model of estimating a quick response of the listener to a conversation of the speaker using the information acquired with a quick response included in the conversation data of the listener as correct answer data (learn model for interject with responses such as yes, no, uh huh, mmm and other conversational cues; see paragraph 0036 and 0306-0328).
As to dependent claim 2, Krishman further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire any one or more of an expression, a motion, and voice of the speaker as the information on the speaker, and acquire any one or more of the expression, the motion, and the voice of the speaker as the information on the listener (an emotional state of the user (for example determined by sentiment detection component 275, etc., see paragraphs 0092, 0293, and 0306-0318).
.
Claims 5 and 7 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bratt et al. US 20220115001 A1 teaches method for understanding and generating human conversation cues.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171