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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 7, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1 – 19 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 13, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7, 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 – 16 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues “In view of the rejection, independent claim 1 has been amended to further clarify the specific computer-implemented processing performed for detecting a conversational breakdown. In particular, claim 1 now recites "a detection step of detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown." As amended, claim 1 is not directed to a mere mental process.”, “However, amended claim 1 does not merely recite determining whether a response is correct or incorrect. Rather, amended claim 1 expressly recites: "comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown." Accordingly, amended claim 1 requires a computer to detect a breakdown based on whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown, rather than on whether the answer is correct or incorrect.”, and “Accordingly, the "state indicative of a conversational breakdown" of the interlocutor recited in amended claim 1 is different from evaluating the content of an answer itself as being correct or incorrect. Thus, even if the content of an answer is ultimately correct, a breakdown may nevertheless be detected under amended claim 1 where the answer indicates a state of the interlocutor, such as confusion accompanied by silence, delayed speech generation, or another conversational state. Conversely, the mere fact that an answer does not match a predetermined correct answer to a question is not sufficient to indicate "a state indicative of a conversational breakdown" of the interlocutor. Accordingly, the Office's interpretation that "detecting a breakdown" encompasses a first person determining that the response of a second person is incorrect no longer applies to amended claim 1.”.
However, the amended claim 1 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. A person can assess whether an interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown by comparing an answer of the interlocutor with a distribution of normal responses by listening to the interlocutor’s response and reading a set of normal responses. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B).
On pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “Furthermore, the processing recited in amended claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Amended claim 1 does not recite a human evaluator listening to an interlocutor's response and subjectively evaluating the interlocutor's condition or ability. Rather, amended claim 1 requires that a computer compare the interlocutor's answer with "a distribution of normal responses" and determine, based on that comparison, "whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown." In a real-world setting, evaluation results may vary depending of human evaluators. For example, when a human evaluator listens to an interlocutor's response and performs an evaluation, the evaluation may depend on the evaluator's experience, level of skill, attentiveness, and subjective judgment criteria. Consequently, even for the same response, different evaluators may reach different conclusions as to whether a breakdown has occurred, resulting in variations in the evaluation. In contrast, under amended claim 1, the computer compares the answer with "a distribution of normal responses" and determines, based on that comparison, "whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown." Accordingly, the detection of a breakdown does not depend on the subjective impressions or experience of individual evaluators, but is instead performed based on a consistent comparison criterion applied by the computer. As a result, differences arising from the subjective judgments of individual evaluators are suppressed, and consistent and reproducible detection results can be obtained for the same response. Accordingly, the claimed detection of a breakdown is different from a person merely listening to a conversation and evaluating the interlocutor's ability. Under amended claim 1, the computer compares the interlocutor's answer with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown. When such a state of the interlocutor is present, the computer detects a breakdown. This processing suppresses variations in evaluation attributable to subjective judgments of individual evaluators and enables objective, consistent, and reproducible detection of conversational breakdowns.”.
However, the amended claim 1 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. A person is capable of mentally comparing the interlocutor's answer with "a distribution of normal responses" and determining, based on that comparison, "whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown". Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “detect a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown”, a single person performing the claim limitation does not require multiple individual evaluators that could introduce variations in evaluation attributable to subjective judgments. Also, claim 1 only recites the limitation being “executed by a computer” and does not provide any detail as to how executing the limitation by a computer would provide consistent and reproducible detection results and suppress variations in evaluation. If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.B).
On page 10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant further argues “Moreover, Applicants respectfully disagree with the Office's conclusion that the additional elements merely invoke generic computer implementation. As an ordered combination, the claimed steps define a specific computer-implemented processing sequence for objectively detecting conversational breakdowns and determining the interlocutor's level based on the detected breakdown. This ordered combination is not a mere instruction to apply an alleged abstract idea using a generic computer. Rather, by actively probing the interlocutor's boundary level, detecting conversational breakdowns at that boundary, and determining the upper limit of the interlocutor's level based on the detected breakdown, the claimed processing improves the accuracy and reliability of the determination. Accordingly, the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.”.
However, a person can perform the ordered combination of steps of claim 1 as a mental process, so the resulting improvements in the accuracy and reliability of the determination of the upper limit of the interlocutor's level do not depend on the use of a computer. The claim 1 limitation “executed by a computer” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 13 and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 5 and 14 – 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an information processing method relating to improve an accuracy of determination of a level of an interlocutor executed by a computer, the method comprising: an utterance control step of selecting and uttering a question at one level among a plurality of levels determined in advance to the interlocutor; a detection step of detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown; and a determination step of determining the level of the interlocutor on a basis of at least a level at which the breakdown is detected.
The claim 1 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “executed by a computer”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “an utterance control step of selecting and uttering a question” in the context of this claim encompasses a first person selecting a question to ask a second person being evaluated, “a detection step of detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor” in the context of this claim encompasses the first person determining that the response of the second person indicates a state indicative of a conversational breakdown by comparing the response to previous responses, and “a determination step of determining the level of the interlocutor” in the context of this claim encompasses the first person determining the evaluation level of the second person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it 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 the additional element “executed by a computer”. The additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0018 of the specification, “The information processing device 1 includes a control unit 10 that includes a CPU or the like, controls each unit, and executes various programs, a storage unit 11 that includes a storage medium such as a flash memory and stores information, and a communication unit 12 that communicates with the outside via the network 3.”. Accordingly, the 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 is directed to an 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 element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2 – 5 depend from claim 1, and thus recite the limitations of claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the claim 1 limitations recite abstract ideas. The additional limitations of claims 2 – 5 do not preclude the steps of claim 1 from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person using the method of claim 1 to perform an evaluation could also perform the limitations of claims 2 – 5:
Claim 2: A person could detect incomprehension, non-fluency, or a decrease in grammatical accuracy in a response.
Claim 3: A person could determine an evaluation level based on a response and select a question at a higher level when the response is correct.
Claim 4: A person could determine an evaluation level based on a response being incorrect and select a question at the determined evaluation level.
Claim 5: A person could select a greeting or small talk as the first question in an evaluation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions for processing information relating to improving an accuracy in determining an interlocutor’s level, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causing the computer to: select and utter a question at one level among a plurality of levels determined in advance to the interlocutor; detect a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown; detect a breakdown of the interlocutor in an answer to the question; and determine the level of the interlocutor on a basis of at least a level at which the breakdown is detected.
The claim 6 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors of a computer”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “select and utter a question” in the context of this claim encompasses a first person selecting a question to ask a second person being evaluated, “detect a breakdown of the interlocutor” in the context of this claim encompasses the first person determining that the response of the second person indicates a state indicative of a conversational breakdown by comparing the response to previous responses, and “determine the level of the interlocutor” in the context of this claim encompasses the first person determining the evaluation level of the second person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it 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 the additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “one or more processors of a computer”. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0018 of the specification, “The information processing device 1 includes a control unit 10 that includes a CPU or the like, controls each unit, and executes various programs, a storage unit 11 that includes a storage medium such as a flash memory and stores information, and a communication unit 12 that communicates with the outside via the network 3.”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites one or more processors of a computer; a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions for processing information relating to improving an accuracy in determining an interlocutor’s level; wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer to: select and utter a question at one level among a plurality of levels determined in advance to the interlocutor; detect a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown; and determine the level of the interlocutor on a basis of at least a level at which the breakdown is detected.
The claim 7 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors of a computer” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “select and utter a question” in the context of this claim encompasses a first person selecting a question to ask a second person being evaluated, “detect a breakdown of the interlocutor” in the context of this claim encompasses the first person determining that the response of the second person indicates a state indicative of a conversational breakdown by comparing the response to previous responses, and “determine the level of the interlocutor” in the context of this claim encompasses the first person determining the evaluation level of the second person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it 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 the additional elements “one or more processors of a computer” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0018 of the specification, “The information processing device 1 includes a control unit 10 that includes a CPU or the like, controls each unit, and executes various programs, a storage unit 11 that includes a storage medium such as a flash memory and stores information, and a communication unit 12 that communicates with the outside via the network 3.”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 8 – 18 depend from claim 1, and thus recite the limitations of claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the claim 1 limitations recite abstract ideas. The additional limitations of claims 8 – 18 do not preclude the steps of claim 1 from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person using the method of claim 1 to perform an evaluation could also perform the limitations of claims 8 – 18:
Claim 8: A person could determine that a response is incorrect because the response deviates from a distribution of normal responses.
Claim 9: A person could determine a level of language proficiency.
Claim 10: A person could determine a level of mental condition, conversational ability, or preference.
Claim 11: A person could determine an evaluation level based on a response and select a question at a higher level when the response is correct.
Claim 12: A person could determine an evaluation level based on a response being incorrect and select a question at the determined evaluation level.
Claim 13: A person could determine an evaluation level based on a response being incorrect and select a question at the determined evaluation level.
Claim 14: A person could select a greeting or small talk as the first question in an evaluation.
Claim 15: A person could select a greeting or small talk as the first question in an evaluation.
Claim 16: A person could select a greeting or small talk as the first question in an evaluation.
Claim 17: A person could determine that a response indicates a state indicative of a conversational breakdown based on a failure to recall vocabulary, grammar, or pronunciation, a delay in responding, or becoming silent in the middle of a sentence or clause.
Claim 18: A person could detect incomprehension based on observing diverting a line of sight, bringing a face closer, blinking a lot, turning sideways, moving a line of sight intensely, head moving intensely, being silent, or reducing a sound volume of an utterance.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 – 4 and 6 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0293036), hereinafter Niemi, in view of Loukina et al. ("Performance of Automated Speech Scoring on Different Low- to Medium-Entropy Item Types for Low-Proficiency English Learners"), hereinafter Loukina.
Regarding claim 1, Niemi discloses an information processing method relating to improve an accuracy of determination of a level of an interlocutor executed by a computer (Paragraph 0042, lines 1-9, "An embodiment of the present invention is at least one of a system, method, device, computer-readable medium having an executable program thereon, and computer program product. An embodiment of the present invention provides for objective assessment of language skills, using an adaptive learning system continuously receiving assessment data. For example, the embodiment can provide reliable English language proficiency evaluations."), the method comprising:
an utterance control step of selecting and uttering a question at one level among a plurality of levels determined in advance to the interlocutor (Paragraph 0055, lines 1- 6, "In an embodiment, a test taker can be given calibrated questions for a fixed initial assessment. That is, one or more questions are not yet adaptive. The answered questions can provide an initial determined ability and/or skills set. For example, the initial assessment can provide a determination of language skills."; Paragraph 0048, lines 1-10, "In an embodiment, for example, the system's item bank includes multiple choice items for listening, reading, and grammar sections, and includes items for all levels pre-A1 to C2. The speaking section includes at least four levels of test forms administered after the adaptive section of the exam predicts the test taker's level. In an embodiment, each form includes at least four tasks which can include an interview, description, simulated interaction (e.g., voicemail message, simulated conversation response), and/or speech task depending on the level of the form."; Giving a test taker calibrated questions for a fixed initial assessment reads on selecting a question at one level among a plurality of levels determined in advance to the interlocutor, and including multiple choice items for listening reads on uttering the question.);
a detection step of detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining that a test taker incorrectly answers a question reads on detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor.);
and a determination step of determining the level of the interlocutor on a basis of at least a level at which the breakdown is detected (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining an assessment of a test takers skills and abilities by decreasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a question is answered incorrectly reads on determining the level of the interlocutor on a basis of at least a level at which the breakdown is detected.).
Niemi does not specifically disclose: a detection step of detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown.
Loukina teaches:
a detection step of detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor by comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses to determine whether the interlocutor is in a state indicative of a conversational breakdown (Page 2, lines 18-19, "In this research report, we further explore differences between item types when using automated speech scoring technology for non-native adult speech in the context of spoken English proficiency assessment."; Page 7, lines 11-16, "For medium- and medium–high-entropy items (PD, MS, AG12, and AG3), the scoring models covered three main constructs: delivery, language use, and content accuracy. Of these three constructs, the features representing the delivery construct were common to both low- and medium-entropy items. Although the models for low-entropy features also covered content accuracy, the approach to evaluating this construct was different for medium-entropy items. Because, by definition, no single correct reference response could be used to evaluate the content coverage, the test responses were instead compared to a large corpus of reference responses to each item using BLEU score"; Scoring English proficiency reads on determining a state indicative of a conversational breakdown, and comparing responses to a large corpus of reference responses reads on comparing an answer of the interlocutor to the question with a distribution of normal responses.).
Loukina is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of automated speaking proficiency assessment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi to incorporate the teachings of Loukina to compare responses to a large corpus of reference responses. Doing so would allow for considering covered content accuracy in scoring language proficiency (Loukina; Page 7, lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 2, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein the breakdown includes any one of incomprehension, non-fluency, or a decrease in grammatical accuracy detected in the answer of the interlocutor (Paragraph 0047, lines 1-21, "In an embodiment, categories of test focus for each section can include: listening (overall listening comprehension, understanding conversation between native speakers, listening as a member of a live audience, listening to announcements and instructions, listening to audio media and recordings, identifying cues and inferring); reading (overall reading comprehension, reading correspondence, reading for orientation, reading for information and argument, reading instructions, identifying cues and inferring); grammar (discourse markers, verb forms and tenses, gerunds and infinitives, conditionals, passive voice, modals, articles, determiners, adjectives, adverbs, intensifiers, questions, nouns, pronouns, possessives, prepositions); speaking (overall spoken production, sustained monologue describing experience, making an argument, simulated spoken interaction, information exchange, spoken fluency, vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, coherence and cohesion, sociolinguistic appropriateness); and writing (overall written production, reports and essays, correspondence, notes, messages, and forms, orthographic control, vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, coherence and cohesion, sociolinguistic appropriateness)."; Paragraph 0056, lines 20-21, “When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased.”; Determining a question is answered incorrectly, where categories of test focus include listening comprehension, spoken fluency, and grammatical accuracy, reads on the breakdown including any one of incomprehension, non-fluency, or a decrease in grammatical accuracy detected in the answer of the interlocutor.).
Regarding claim 3, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein the determination step determines the level of the interlocutor for each unit of the answer to the question, and in a case where the detection step does not detect the breakdown, the utterance control step selects and utters a question at a level higher than the level (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining an assessment of a test takers skills and abilities by decreasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a question is answered incorrectly and increasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a question is answered correctly reads on determining the level of the interlocutor for each unit of the answer to the question, and increasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a test taker correctly answers a question reads on selecting a question at a level higher in a case where the detection step does not detect the breakdown.).
Regarding claim 4, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein in a case where the detection step detects the breakdown, the determination step feedbacks a tentatively determined level to the utterance control step, and the utterance control step selects and utters a question at the tentatively determined level among questions at the plurality of levels (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining that a test taker incorrectly answers a question reads on detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor in an answer to the question.); Determining an assessment of a test takers skills and abilities by providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, where the level of difficulty of a subsequent question is decreased when a question is answered incorrectly, reads on determining a tentative level and selecting a question at the tentatively determined level among questions at the plurality of levels in a case where the detection step detects the breakdown.).
Regarding claim 6, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. In addition, Niemi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions for processing information relating to improving an accuracy in determining an interlocutor’s level (Paragraph 0042, lines 1-9, "An embodiment of the present invention is at least one of a system, method, device, computer-readable medium having an executable program thereon, and computer program product. An embodiment of the present invention provides for objective assessment of language skills, using an adaptive learning system continuously receiving assessment data. For example, the embodiment can provide reliable English language proficiency evaluations."), wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computer, causing the computer to execute the steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. In addition, Niemi discloses an information processing device comprising:
one or more processors of a computer (Paragraph 0012, lines 1-4, “Embodiments of the present invention provide an assessment system, method, and computer-readable medium having instructions thereon which are executable by a processor or computer.”;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing executable instructions for processing information relating to improving an accuracy in determining an interlocutor’s level (Paragraph 0042, lines 1-9, "An embodiment of the present invention is at least one of a system, method, device, computer-readable medium having an executable program thereon, and computer program product. An embodiment of the present invention provides for objective assessment of language skills, using an adaptive learning system continuously receiving assessment data. For example, the embodiment can provide reliable English language proficiency evaluations.");
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer to execute the steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein the breakdown of the interlocutor comprises a deviation of the answer of the interlocutor to the question from the distribution of normal responses (Paragraph 0050, lines 1-8, "Questions are then calibrated by having a number of people answer them, as shown in FIG. 2. The answers can be aggregated to assess the difficulty level for each question. In an embodiment, an initial question can be uploaded to an authoring tool, and that, after receiving a specified number of responses, the question is calibrated. The question can be calibrated by assessing the level of difficulty based on the aggregated responses."; Paragraph 0056, lines 14-23, "If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Calibrating a question based on a specified number of responses, and determining that a question is answered incorrectly, reads on the breakdown of the interlocutor comprising a deviation of the answer of the interlocutor to the question from a distribution of normal responses.).
Regarding claim 9, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein the determination step includes determining the level of the interlocutor’s language proficiency (Paragraph 0042, lines 4-9, "An embodiment of the present invention provides for objective assessment of language skills, using an adaptive learning system continuously receiving assessment data. For example, the embodiment can provide reliable English language proficiency evaluations.").
Regarding claim 10, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein the determination step includes determining any one of the level of the interlocutor’s mental condition, conversational ability or preference (Paragraph 0047, lines 1-21, "In an embodiment, categories of test focus for each section can include: listening (overall listening comprehension, understanding conversation between native speakers, listening as a member of a live audience, listening to announcements and instructions, listening to audio media and recordings, identifying cues and inferring); reading (overall reading comprehension, reading correspondence, reading for orientation, reading for information and argument, reading instructions, identifying cues and inferring); grammar (discourse markers, verb forms and tenses, gerunds and infinitives, conditionals, passive voice, modals, articles, determiners, adjectives, adverbs, intensifiers, questions, nouns, pronouns, possessives, prepositions); speaking (overall spoken production, sustained monologue describing experience, making an argument, simulated spoken interaction, information exchange, spoken fluency, vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, coherence and cohesion, sociolinguistic appropriateness); and writing (overall written production, reports and essays, correspondence, notes, messages, and forms, orthographic control, vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, coherence and cohesion, sociolinguistic appropriateness)."; Paragraph 0056, lines 20-21, “When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased.”; Determining a question is answered incorrectly, where categories of test focus include understanding conversation and speaking, reads on determining any one of the level of the interlocutor’s conversational ability.).
Regarding claim 11, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 2.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein the determination step determines the level of the interlocutor for each unit of the answer to the question, and in a case where the detection step does not detect the breakdown, the utterance control step selects and utters a question at a level higher than the level (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining an assessment of a test takers skills and abilities by decreasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a question is answered incorrectly and increasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a question is answered correctly reads on determining the level of the interlocutor for each unit of the answer to the question, and increasing the level of difficulty of a subsequent question when a test taker correctly answers a question reads on selecting a question at a level higher in a case where the detection step does not detect the breakdown.).
Regarding claim 12, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 2.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein in a case where the detection step detects the breakdown, the determination step feedbacks a tentatively determined level to the utterance control step, and the utterance control step selects and utters a question at the tentatively determined level among questions at the plurality of levels (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining that a test taker incorrectly answers a question reads on detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor in an answer to the question.); Determining an assessment of a test takers skills and abilities by providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, where the level of difficulty of a subsequent question is decreased when a question is answered incorrectly, reads on determining a tentative level and selecting a question at the tentatively determined level among questions at the plurality of levels in a case where the detection step detects the breakdown.).
Regarding claim 13, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 3.
Niemi further discloses:
wherein in a case where the detection step detects the breakdown, the determination step feedbacks a tentatively determined level to the utterance control step, and the utterance control step selects and utters a question at the tentatively determined level among questions at the plurality of levels (Paragraph 0056, lines 1-23, "FIG. 7 shows an overview of the system. An Adaptive Assessment Engine is a system that is responsible for estimating a learner (test taker) ability and selecting items during an assessment. An Item Response Theory (IRT) algorithm provides the adaptive assessment engine with information during the assessment of a test taker. For example, a test taker begins an assessment by answering a question. FIGS. 8 to 11 show embodiments of a user interface of a skills test. The next question to answer depends on the answer of the first question. That is, if a test taker correctly answers a first question, the level of difficulty of the first question is assessed, and a second question is provided having a higher level of difficulty than the first question. If a test taker incorrectly answers a first question, then the second question can have the same or lower level of difficulty as the first question. For example, FIGS. 6 and 13 show a chart of questions provided and their difficulty level. As a question was correctly answered, or passed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question increased. When a question is incorrectly answered, or failed, the level of difficulty of the subsequent question decreased. By providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, an assessment of the test takers skills and abilities can be determined."; Determining that a test taker incorrectly answers a question reads on detecting a breakdown of the interlocutor in an answer to the question.); Determining an assessment of a test takers skills and abilities by providing questions responsive to a difficulty level, where the level of difficulty of a subsequent question is decreased when a question is answered incorrectly, reads on determining a tentative level and selecting a question at the tentatively determined level among questions at the plurality of levels in a case where the detection step detects the breakdown.).
Claims 5 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemi in view of Loukina, and further in view of Saeki et al. ("Analysis of multimodal features for speaking proficiency scoring in an interview dialogue"), hereinafter Saeki.
Regarding claim 5, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation.
Saeki teaches:
wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation (Abstract, lines 1-3, "This paper analyzes the effectiveness of different modalities in automated speaking proficiency scoring in an online dialogue task of non-native speakers."; Figure 1 caption, lines 1-2, "In the early phase (level check), an interviewer asks a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate CEFR levels (A-level, B-level, and C-level)"; Figure 1, line 2, "Hello my name is….. What's your name?"; Asking a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where the question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?", reads on selecting and uttering a greeting as the one level question in an introductory operation.).
Saeki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of automated speaking proficiency assessment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina to incorporate the teachings of Saeki to ask a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where the question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?". Doing so would allow for implementing a speaking proficiency scoring model that incorporates lexical, acoustic and visual features (Saeki; Section 5, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 14, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 2, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation.
Saeki teaches:
wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation (Abstract, lines 1-3, "This paper analyzes the effectiveness of different modalities in automated speaking proficiency scoring in an online dialogue task of non-native speakers."; Figure 1 caption, lines 1-2, "In the early phase (level check), an interviewer asks a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate CEFR levels (A-level, B-level, and C-level)"; Figure 1, line 2, "Hello my name is….. What's your name?"; Asking a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where a question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?", reads on selecting and uttering a greeting as the one level question in an introductory operation.).
Saeki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of automated speaking proficiency assessment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina to incorporate the teachings of Saeki to ask a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where a question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?". Doing so would allow for implementing a speaking proficiency scoring model that incorporates lexical, acoustic and visual features (Saeki; Section 5, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 15, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 3, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation.
Saeki teaches:
wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation (Abstract, lines 1-3, "This paper analyzes the effectiveness of different modalities in automated speaking proficiency scoring in an online dialogue task of non-native speakers."; Figure 1 caption, lines 1-2, "In the early phase (level check), an interviewer asks a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate CEFR levels (A-level, B-level, and C-level)"; Figure 1, line 2, "Hello my name is….. What's your name?"; Asking a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where a question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?", reads on selecting and uttering a greeting as the one level question in an introductory operation.).
Saeki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of automated speaking proficiency assessment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina to incorporate the teachings of Saeki to ask a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where a question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?". Doing so would allow for implementing a speaking proficiency scoring model that incorporates lexical, acoustic and visual features (Saeki; Section 5, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 16, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 4, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation.
Saeki teaches:
wherein the utterance control step selects and utters a greeting or a small talk as the one level question in an introductory operation (Abstract, lines 1-3, "This paper analyzes the effectiveness of different modalities in automated speaking proficiency scoring in an online dialogue task of non-native speakers."; Figure 1 caption, lines 1-2, "In the early phase (level check), an interviewer asks a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate CEFR levels (A-level, B-level, and C-level)"; Figure 1, line 2, "Hello my name is….. What's your name?"; Asking a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where a question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?", reads on selecting and uttering a greeting as the one level question in an introductory operation.).
Saeki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of automated speaking proficiency assessment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina to incorporate the teachings of Saeki to ask a few questions to assess the interviewee’s approximate Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) level, where a question is "Hello my name is….. What's your name?". Doing so would allow for implementing a speaking proficiency scoring model that incorporates lexical, acoustic and visual features (Saeki; Section 5, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 17, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the state indicative of the conversational breakdown includes one or more of: (i) a state in which the interlocutor fails to recall vocabulary, grammar, or pronunciation; (ii) a state in which the interlocutor is delayed in producing an utterance; and (iii) a state in which the interlocutor becomes silent in a middle of a sentence or clause.
Saeki teaches:
wherein the state indicative of the conversational breakdown includes one or more of: (i) a state in which the interlocutor fails to recall vocabulary, grammar, or pronunciation; (ii) a state in which the interlocutor is delayed in producing an utterance; and (iii) a state in which the interlocutor becomes silent in a middle of a sentence or clause (Abstract, lines 1-3, "This paper analyzes the effectiveness of different modalities in automated speaking proficiency scoring in an online dialogue task of non-native speakers."; Section 3.2, lines 8-13, "The overall CEFR that is the holistic speaking proficiency is further broken down into subcategories of six qualitative features: lexical range (Range), grammatical accuracy (Accuracy), fluency of speech (Fluency), goodness of pronunciation (Phonology), interactional competence (Interaction) and sentence coherence (Coherence)."; Section 4.1, lines 1-4, "We chose set of features used in many previous automatic speech scoring models [5, 18]. The features are listed in Table 1, categorised in the qualitative features of the overall CEFR."; Table 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
492
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
A grammatical accuracy feature reads on a state in which the interlocutor fails to recall grammar, an interaction after gap feature reads on a state in which the interlocutor is delayed in producing an utterance, and a pause frequency feature reads on a state in which the interlocutor becomes silent in a middle of a sentence or clause.).
Saeki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of automated speaking proficiency assessment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina to incorporate the teachings of Saeki to evaluate speaking proficiency using features including a grammatical accuracy feature, an interaction after gap feature, and a pause frequency feature. Doing so would allow for implementing a speaking proficiency scoring model that incorporates lexical, acoustic, and visual features (Saeki; Section 5, lines 6-13).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemi in view of Loukina, and further in view of De Lemos (US Patent No. 8,814,357).
Regarding claim 18, Niemi in view of Loukina discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 2, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the state of the interlocutor's incomprehension includes one or more of: (i) diverting a line of sight; (ii) bringing a face closer; (iii) blinking a lot, turning sideways; (iv) moving a line of sight intensely; (v) moving a head intensely, being silent; and (vi) reducing a sound volume of utterance.
De Lemos teaches:
wherein the state of the interlocutor's incomprehension includes one or more of: (i) diverting a line of sight; (ii) bringing a face closer; (iii) blinking a lot, turning sideways; (iv) moving a line of sight intensely; (v) moving a head intensely, being silent; and (vi) reducing a sound volume of utterance (Column 1, lines 41-56, "The invention addressing these and other drawbacks in the art relates to a reading meter system and method for identifying the existence and position of text in visual media content (e.g., a document or other visual media content to be displayed (or being displayed) on a computer monitor or other display device) and determining whether a subject has interacted with the text and/or the level of the subject's interaction with the text (e.g., whether the subject looked at the text, whether the subject read the text, whether the subject comprehended the text, whether the subject perceived and made sense of the identified text, and/or other levels of the subject's interaction with the text). The determination may, for example, be based on eye data generated from an eye tracking device. Eye data may include, but not be limited to, pupil data, blink data, gaze data, eye position/movement, pupil dilation, and/or other eye data."; Column 3, line 64 - Column 4, line 5, "According to one aspect of the invention, the memory impact determination module may receive data from the cognitive workload determination module and the eye gaze pattern determination module to identify current words of interest which attract special attention (e.g., direction of sight, longer duration of fixations, or returning to particular parts of the text). Since the reading process is mainly cognitive, there is a direct link between gaze patterns while reading and the processing in working memory."; Determining whether a subject comprehended a text reads on a state of the interlocutor's incomprehension, basing the determination on eye position, eye movement, and direction of sight reads on the state of the interlocutor's incomprehension including diverting a line of sight and moving a line of sight, and basing the determination on blink data reads on the state of the interlocutor's incomprehension including blinking a lot.).
De Lemos is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of evaluating comprehension. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina to incorporate the teachings of De Lemos to determine whether a subject comprehended a text based on eye position, eye movement, direction of sight, and blink data. Doing so would allow for using eye data generated from an eye tracking device to determine comprehension (De Lemos; Column 1, lines 41-56).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niemi in view of Loukina and De Lemos, and further in view of Burdis et al. (US Patent No. 11,488,489), hereinafter Burdis.
Regarding claim 19, Niemi in view of Loukina and De Lemos discloses the information processing method as claimed in claim 18, but does not specifically disclose: wherein the state of the interlocutor is detected using an electrical signal generated by a microphone configured to convert the interlocutor's voice into the electrical signal and an image signal output from a camera configured to capture an image of the interlocutor.
Burdis teaches:
wherein the state of the interlocutor is detected using an electrical signal generated by a microphone configured to convert the interlocutor's voice into the electrical signal and an image signal output from a camera configured to capture an image of the interlocutor (Column 11, lines 51-53, "The response module 202, in such an embodiment, may capture and record voice responses using a microphone, a video camera, or other audio/video capture device or sensor."; Column 17, lines 30-37, "In some embodiments, the method 500 receives 506 a response from the user in response to the prompt. The response may include a voice response, a video response, and/or a written response to the prompt. In certain embodiments, the method 500 compares 508 one or more characteristics of the response to one or more corresponding characteristics of a predefined response."; Column 17, lines 49-51, "The method 500, in one embodiment, determines 512 and/or updates a language proficiency for the user based on the scores that are assigned to the user's response."; Comparing characteristics of a response that includes a voice response and a video response to corresponding characteristics of a predefined response to determine a language proficiency for a user reads on detecting the state of the interlocutor using the interlocutor's voice and image signals, and capturing and recording voice responses using a microphone, a video camera, or other audio/video capture device or sensor reads on using an electrical signal generated by a microphone configured to convert the interlocutor's voice into the electrical signal and an image signal output from a camera configured to capture an image of the interlocutor.).
Burdis is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of evaluating comprehension. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Niemi in view of Loukina and De Lemos to incorporate the teachings of Burdis to compare characteristics of a response that includes a voice response and a video response to corresponding characteristics of a predefined response to determine a language proficiency for a user. Doing so would allow for calculating a user's proficiency in a language and provide immediate and accurate feedback without the inconsistencies and biases that may arise with language learning systems directed by humans (Burdis; Column 9, lines 9-23).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Boggs whose telephone number is (571)272-2968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at (571)272-5551. 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.
/JAMES BOGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights