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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 20 defines a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable code stored, however, Applicant’s specification does not define or exemplify the claimed media as only encompassing statutory media. Based upon the consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim 20 recites “a computer-readable storage medium” that may encompass non-statutory subject matter. The examiner suggests substituting the “a computer-readable storage medium" with "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to comply with eligibility.
Claims 1-5, 9-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 1 recites “obtaining a dialogue content with an interactive object and a first emotional data of the interactive object in a first period; determining a first emotional type according to the first emotional data; activating a first emotional model corresponding to the first emotional type; generating a first response content according to the dialogue content through invoking the first emotional model; and responding to the dialogue content according to the first response content”.
[Abstract idea indicators]
Receiving dialogue input and emotional indication information— a task that human routinely performs mentally or with conventional tools.
Identifying an emotion, i.e., a cognitive process.
Assigning data source (model) step and generating an answer step that are mental processes.
Responding to the input – Also a task that human routinely performs mentally or with conventional tools.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 10 and 20, recite additional element of “processor” and “storage medium”. The processor and storage-medium recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. Accordingly, there 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.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter.
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory, processor, and presenting to a workspace device) and broadly recite use of “model” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “obtaining”, “determining”, “activating”, “generating”, “responding”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 20 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the mere invocation of “training…model” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology. Moreover, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 13, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the mere invocation of “train…model” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology. Moreover, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and further does not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1-5, 9-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawahara et al., (US 2020/075007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawahara discloses a method for intelligent interaction, comprising:
obtaining a dialogue content with an interactive object and a first emotional data of the interactive object in a first period (Figs. 2, 7 and 12, [0053][0067][0133] obtaining spoken natural-language input which includes emotional features which is acquired from detected device 140);
determining a first emotional type according to the first emotional data (Figs. 2, 7 and 12, [0067] determining emotional state of the user associated with the user input);
activating a first emotional model corresponding to the first emotional type (Fig. 2, [0058][0068] selecting a model from the plurality of models according to the user state detected by the user state detection unit 140);
generating a first response content according to the dialogue content through invoking the first emotional model (Fig. 2, [0060][0067][0068] determining which response is to be executed according to the non-linguistic information analysis result);
responding to the dialogue content according to the first response content (Fig. 2, [0062][0067][0068] performing control for executing the response determined by the response determination unit 120).
Regarding claim 2, Kawahara discloses the method of claim 1, Kawahara further discloses:
obtaining a second emotional data of the interactive object in a second period (Figs. 2, 7 and 12, [0053][0067][0133] obtaining spoken natural-language input which includes emotional features which is acquired from detected device 140);
determining a second emotional type according to the second emotional data (Figs. 2, 7 and 12, [0067] determining emotional state of the user associated with the user input);
when the second emotional type is different from the first emotional type, activating a second emotional model corresponding to the second emotional type, and generating a second response content according to the dialogue content through invoking the second emotional model ([0069] selecting a model based on the suitable tempo and rhythm of the conversation may vary depending on changes in his/her emotion or the like).
responding to the dialogue content according to the second response content (Fig. 2, [0062][0067][0068] performing control for executing the response determined by the response determination unit).
Regarding claim 3, Kawahara discloses the method of claim 2, Kawahara further discloses:
when the second emotional type is different from the first emotional type, deactivating the first emotional model ([0069] selecting a model depending on changes in his/her emotion).
Regarding claim 4, Kawahara discloses the method of claim 2, Kawahara further discloses:
when the second emotional type is the same as the first emotional type, keeping the first emotional model in active state ([0069] selecting a different model when a user changes in his/her emotion, otherwise, keeping the previous status).
Regarding claim 5, Kawahara discloses the method of claim 1, Kawahara further discloses:
before activating a first emotional model corresponding to the first emotional type, the method further comprising: adding emotional languages to the dialogue content according to a first corpus corresponding to the first emotional type (Fig. 2, [0059][0061][0067] the response database 110 stores in advance a plurality of system voice data pieces indicating system speech; [0055][0067] The response history storage unit 132 stores this response history information).
Regarding claim 9, Kawahara discloses the method of claim 1, Kawahara further discloses:
before activating a first emotional model corresponding to the first emotional type, the method further comprising: training the first emotional model based on an emotional training set; wherein the emotional training set is corresponding to the first emotional type ([0067][0072][0078] training a model using machine learning).
Regarding claims 10-14, claims 10-14 are the corresponding system claims to method claims 1-5. Therefore, claims 10-14 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1-5 above.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is the corresponding system claim to method claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, Kawahara discloses the device of claim 10, Kawahara further discloses:
A monitor; the monitor is used to display a response content ([0049][0141] displaying on the display screen of the information terminal).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the corresponding medium claim to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al., (US 2020/0075007 A1) in view of Shoemaker et al., (US 2014/0161421 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kawahara discloses the method of claim 1.
Kawahara does not explicitly teach however Shoemaker does explicitly teach:
determining a first emotional type according to the first emotional data comprising: when the first emotional data includes heart rates, determining a first emotional type according to the heart rates; wherein the heart rates include low frequencies and high frequencies, the low frequencies are less than a preset frequency threshold, and the high frequencies are greater than or equal to the preset frequency threshold (Fig. 2, [0023] determining emotional state based on measuring heart rate. When the person’s heart rate of 140 bpm exceeds a heart rate threshold, person is excited or agitated and when the person's heart rate of 75 bpm below the heart rate threshold, the person is in a calm state; [0056] “the frequency of the sinusoid is between about 0.7 to 3.0 Hz to represent a range of heart rates (42-180 bpm) corresponding to a range of emotional states to be exhibited by the CGI character”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the voice interaction system and the method of learning model as taught by Kawahara with the method of determining emotional state with analysis of physiological measures as taught by Shoemaker to provide indication of the person’s calm state, which can provide the person with advantages in business negotiations (Shoemaker, [0028]).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al., (US 2020/075007 A1) in view of Shoemaker et al., (US 2014/0161421 A1) and further in view of Kato et al., (US 2024/0382126 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kawahara in view of Shoemaker discloses the method of claim 6.
Kawahara in view of Shoemaker does not explicitly teach however Kato does explicitly teach:
determining a first emotional type according to the heart rates comprising: when the number of the low frequencies increases and the number of the high frequencies decreases, determining the first emotional type is excited emotion;
when the number of the low frequencies decreases and the number of the high frequencies increases, determining the first emotional type is steady emotion; when the number of the low frequencies decreases and the number of the high frequencies decreases, determining the first emotional type is downcast emotion; when the number of the low frequencies increases and the number of the high frequencies increases, determining the first emotional type is tense emotion ([0124] setting a region using value of the vertical axis and the horizontal axis in addition to the regions of the four quadrants, and arranging an emotion type that has been determined, such as Neutral, anxiety, fear, relaxation, joy and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the voice interaction system and the method of learning model as taught by Kawahara in view of Shoemaker with the method of updating at any time with information extracted from evidence as taught by Kato to improve the estimation accuracy of emotion (Kato, [0172]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al., (US 2020/075007 A1) in view of Shoemaker et al., (US 2014/0161421 A1) and further in view of Guo et al., (US 2018/0005137 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kawahara in view of Shoemaker discloses the method of claim 6.
Kawahara in view of Shoemaker does not explicitly teach however Guo does explicitly teach:
wherein: the low frequencies range from 0.04 Hz to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequencies range from 0.15 Hz to 0.4 Hz ([0025] “transform the heart rate signal into the frequency domain by a fast Fourier transform (FFT) and calculate powers of the heart rate signal respectively in a low frequency interval (0.04 Hz to 0.15 Hz) and a high frequency interval (0.15 Hz to 0.4 Hz) in order to obtain a low frequency (LF) power and a high frequency (HF) power of the heart rate signal to serve as the initial emotion parameters. On the other hand, the processor 104 can further calculate a ratio of the LF power and the HF power of the heart rate signal to serve as the initial emotion parameter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the voice interaction system and the method of learning model as taught by Kawahara in view of Shoemaker with the method of adapt FFT and calculate signals using low/high frequency interval as taught by Guo to provide advantage of simplicity in calculation and is suitable for data analysis in short period of time (Guo, [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights