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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a voice acquisition unit”, “a voice analysis unit”, “a 3D avatar generation unit”, and “a display control unit” in claims 1-3 and 7-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For the sake of further prosecution, the Examiner will treat the respective “units” as appropriate hardware configured to perform the recited functions.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 15 defines a “A recording medium that records a program” embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “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 Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG212, February 23,2010). That is, the scope of the presently claimed “recording medium” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. The examiner suggests amending the claim to embody the program on a “computer readable medium” and adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim or equivalent in order to make the claim statutory. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP2021043841A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches an information processing device (Matsumoto; ¶0006, describes a virtual character generation device) comprising: a voice acquisition unit that acquires voice data of a user (Matsumoto; ¶0012, describes an input data receiving unit that receives audio data or image data as input data, where the voice data is data related to a human voice. This teaches a device acquiring voice data.) a voice analysis unit that calculates voice features based on a result of analyzing the voice data of the user (Matsumoto; ¶0019, describes a voice feature amount calculation unit that calculates feature amounts of the voice data, including voice pitch, loudness, and timbre. This teaches calculating voice features based on the voice data of the user.) and an avatar generation unit that generates an avatar having an appearance according to at least one of a plurality of impression word scores calculated on the basis of the voice features (Matsumoto; ¶0020, describes the voice impression specifying unit identifies an impression based on the voice feature amount calculated by the voice feature amount calculation unit, such as "cute", "gorgeous", "traditional" and further describes calculating similarity between the feature amount calculated and each feature amount/impression of the voice DB. The calculated similarities are numerical scores associated with impression calculations and calculated based on the voice features. Matsumoto; ¶0021, describes selecting image data corresponding to the impression specified from the image DB and selecting image data corresponding to the impression for each part. Matsumoto; ¶0022, describes a virtual character generation unit that, when the input data received is voice data, generates a virtual character composed of the image data. This teaches generating an avatar having an appearance according to at least one voice impression score.)
However, Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose in the same embodiment that the image data selected when generating the avatar is 3D image data.
Matsumoto further generating a 3D avatar (Matsumoto; ¶0037, the image data stored in the image DB may be 3D image data and may include the whole body image and partial images such as hairstyle, accessories, and clothes of the virtual character (avatar). The 3D image data is used to generate the virtual character. This teaches generating a 3D avatar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the image data used in Matsumoto’s voice-virtual character generation as Matsumoto’s 3D image data as Matsumoto describes 3D image data for the whole body and partial stored in the image DB and used for virtual character generation. The motivation for such a modification would have been to generate a 3D avatar having an appearance corresponding to the user’s voice features.
Claim 14, has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, except claim 15 recites, a “recording medium that records a program causing a computer to perform processing”. Matsumoto; ¶0006 describes a program for operating a computer to perform the virtual character generation.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the 3D avatar generation unit generates the 3D avatar by changing a plurality of parts included in a 3D model of a base body (Matsumoto; ¶0050, describes a main/root image of the virtual character such as the whole body or upper body and selecting hairstyles and accessories based on the impression data (from voice data). The main/root image correlates to the 3D model of the base body and selecting the hairstyle and accessories correlates to changing a plurality of parts of the base body. This teaches generating the 3D avatar by changing a plurality of parts included in a 3D model of a base body.)
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the 3D avatar generation unit changes the plurality of parts based on an appearance parameter calculated on the basis of at least one of the plurality of impression word scores (Matsumoto; ¶0047, describes the control unit calculates the feature amount of the voice data, collates the calculated voice feature amount with feature amounts registers in the voice DB, and specifies the impression of the voice data based on the position of impression data associated with a highly matching feature amount. The coordinate position of the voice data impression correlates to the appearance parameter calculated based on at least one of the impression word scores. Matsumoto; ¶0050, describes selecting a main (root) image, such as the whole body or upper body, based on the impression data at the position closest to the coordinate position indicated by the impression data of the voice data and selecting hairstyle and accessory image data when their impression data are within a predetermined range from the indicated coordinate position. This teaches changing the plurality of parts based on the appearance parameter calculated from the impression score.)
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the appearance parameter indicates a selection of each of the part (Matsumoto; ¶0049, describes the control unit selects one image data from the plurality of image data stored in the image DB based on the impressions from the voice data and, when image data is stored for each part, selects one image data from the plurality for each part. The voice impression used to select image data (Matsumoto; ¶0047, see claim 3) correlates to the appearance parameter and selecting image data for each part based on that impression correlates to the indicating a selection of each part.)
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 3. However, although Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the 3D avatar generation unit converts the highest impression word score among the plurality of impression word scores into the appearance parameter, Matsumoto describes (Matsumoto; ¶0020) calculating similarity between the input voice feature amount and each stored feature amount/impression classification and specifying an impression based on satisfying a threshold. Matsumoto; ¶0047, further describes using the coordinate position (appearance parameter) associated with a highly matching stored feature amount as the impression of the voice data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select the impression classifier with the highest calculated similarity to use as the appearance parameter as above the threshold includes the highest score with the predictable result of generating an avatar corresponding to the impression having the greatest degree of agreement.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the 3D avatar generation unit converts the impression word score having a numerical value exceeding a threshold value among the plurality of impression word scores into the appearance parameter (Matsumoto; ¶0020, describes the voice impression specifying unit compares calculated voice feature amounts against stored feature amount classifiers in the voice DB, calculates (numerical) similarity scores, and classifies those having a similarity at or above a certain threshold value. Matsumoto; ¶0024-0025, further describes impression data is stored as numerical coordinate values on a 3D impression map and, Matsumoto; ¶0047, describes the impression specified through this threshold classification is used to select image data (appearance parameter). The impression score exceeding the numerical threshold value is converted into the appearance parameter. This teaches converting an impression word score exceeding a threshold value into the appearance parameter.)
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the 3D avatar generation unit has the plurality of 3D models of base bodies, and selects one of the plurality of 3D models of base bodies based on values of the plurality of impression word scores (Matsumoto; ¶0049, describes selecting one image data from a plurality of image data stored in the image DB based on the impression from the voice data and, Matsumoto; ¶0050, describes selected image data as a main/root image of the virtual character (whole or upper body), based on the impression data closest to the coordinate position indicated by the impression data of the audio data. The main (root) images correlate to the plurality of 3D models of base bodies and selecting one based on the voice impression correlates to selecting one based on values of the plurality of impression word scores.)
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit that controls display of the 3D avatar (Matsumoto; ¶0053, describes the control unit outputs the generated virtual character for display on a terminal and may output the image with motion. This teaches controlling display of the 3D avatar.)
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 11. However, although Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the display control unit controls display of information indicating at least one of the plurality of impression word scores used to generate the 3D avatar Matsumoto teaches displaying impression related information (Matsumoto; ¶0033, describes the control unit displays the impression map on a screen and allows positions associated with an impression word to be plotted on the displayed map.) Matsumoto further teaches registering plotted three-dimensional coordinates as impression data (Matsumoto; ¶0034) and specifying an impression by comparing calculated voice feature amounts with feature amounts registered in the voice DB and selecting the impression data associated with a high degree of matching (Matsumoto; ¶0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to display, on Matsumoto’s impression map, information indicating the voice impression score used to select the avatar image data (and generate). Matsumoto provides a displayed impression map for presenting impression words and impression positions and Matsumoto uses a voice impression to select avatar image data used for generation. The motivation for such a modification would have been to inform the user of the impression used to generate the avatar with the predictable result of displaying information indicating at least one impression word score used to generate the 3D avatar.
Claims 4-5, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP2021043841A) and Lafer (US20220068007A1).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein changing the plurality of parts includes replacing and adding each of the part (Matsumoto; ¶0049, describes when image data is stored for each part,the control unit may select one image data from a plurality of image data for each part and, Matsumoto; ¶0050, describes selecting hairstyle and accessory image data based on the impression data. Selecting one image data from a plurality of image data for a part reads on replacing the part, and selecting optional accessories/hair teaches adding parts.)
However, Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the changing of the plurality of parts includes moving and deforming.
Lafer teaches wherein changing the plurality of parts includes moving and deforming (Lafer; ¶0016, describes deforming and posing a rigged 3D mesh by determining displacement of vertices of the 3D mesh, determining translation or rotation, and determining transformation to match a pose. Vertex displacement correlates to deforming 3D model parts, and translation/rotation and transformation correlate to moving 3D model parts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the voice-based character generation of Matsumoto with Lafer’s 3D mesh deformation and posing with the benefit of enabling replacing, adding, moving and deforming parts as part of avatar generation.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 3. However, Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the appearance parameter indicates a degree of change to each of the part.
Lafer teaches wherein the appearance parameter indicates a degree of change to each of the part. (Lafer; ¶0016, describes deforming and posing a rigged 3D mesh by determining displacement of vertices of the 3D mesh, determining translation or rotation, and determining transformation to match a pose. The vertex displacement, translation/rotation, and transformation of the 3D parts correlate to the degree of change applied to each of the parts.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the voice based character generation of Matsumoto with Lafer’s 3D mesh deformation and posing to provide the benefit of increased control/granularity.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Matsumoto does not explicitly describe wherein the 3D avatar generation unit calculates appearance parameters so that parts making up the 3D avatar do not interfere with each other.
Lafer teaches wherein the 3D avatar generation unit calculates appearance parameters so that parts making up the 3D avatar do not interfere with each other (Lafer; ¶0007, describes deforming and posing a rigged 3D mesh to match an image and, Lafer; ¶0016, describes determining vertex displacements, translations, rotations, and transformations to be applied to match the object pose. The calculated vertex displacement, translation, rotation, and transformation values read on appearance parameters for spatially fitting parts of the 3D avatar so the parts do not interfere with each other.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the voice based character generation of Matsumoto with Lafer’s 3D mesh deformation and pose parameter calculations to provide the benefit of a more seamless and natural-looking 3D avatar.
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto teaches the information processing device according to claim 12, including displaying impression information and receiving user input for the displayed impression information (Matsumoto; ¶0033, describes displaying the impression map and receiving user input plotting a selected impression position on the map.) However, Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose changing the 3D avatar based on an input for the information from the user.
Lafer teaches changing the 3D avatar based on an input for the information from the user (Lafer; ¶0009, describes displaying a user interface that includes the 3D asset and receiving user input to adjust at least one graphical feature of the 3D asset. In the combination with Matsumoto’s displayed impression information (Matsumoto; ¶0033), the user input for the impression information changes a graphical feature of the 3D avatar.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the displayed impression map interface of Matsumoto with Lafer’s user-adjustment for the benefit of enhanced user customization and personalization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN F KALHORI whose telephone number is (571)272-5475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, DEVONA E FAULK can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/DAN F KALHORI/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights