DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 2, 8 and 15 recites a method comprising:
analyzing a spoken user response and determine how accurately the user spoke key elements corresponding to an audio challenge presented by an animated avatar, and determining how confident the user sounded when responding to the audio challenge;
based at least in part on the analysis of the spoken user response, comprising a determination as to:
how accurately the user spoke key elements corresponding to the audio challenge, and
how confident the user sounded when responding to the audio challenge,
generating a score and cause the score to be rendered on the display device;
indicating which key elements the user accurately spoke; and
providing feedback on the user's style with respect to the user's spoken response.
The limitations of analyzing a spoken user response, making a determination, generating a score, indicating key elements, and providing feedback, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, akin to the process of “obtaining information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” in Electric Power Group. That is, other than reciting a training system comprising a server and a display to perform the analysis of the response and display of the results, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server” language, analyzing the response and making a determination in the context of these claims encompasses a user listening to the response and making mental judgements. Similarly, the limitations of indicating and providing, as drafted, could be performed by a person, for example orally or using a pen and paper. 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.
The claims are also directed to a Method of Organizing Human Activity, as they are directed to managing personal behavior and teaching by providing feedback to a user regarding their response to a prompt. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of using a server to perform the analyzing steps and a generic display to perform the feedback steps. The server and display in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic server performing generic computer functions of analyzing a spoken response to determine accuracy and confidence and generate a score, and a generic display performing generic display functions of rendering feedback) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims further recite causing an audio challenge to be played via a playback device and at a same time causing an animated avatar appearing to speak the audio challenge to be rendered on a display device, wherein lips, facial expression, and gestures of the animated avatar are animated and the animated avatar has lip motions at least substantially synchronized with the audio challenge; recording a spoken user response to the audio challenge; and enabling the recording of the spoken user response to be played back. These limitations are involved only in the pre-solution data gathering (presenting a prompt and receiving a spoken response) such that they only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claims do 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 of using a server and display to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, as discussed above, causing an audio challenge to be played back along with an animated avatar and recording a user response to the challenge amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, these claim elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. See e.g. Redlich (US 2008/0124690 A1) (abstract, Par’s. 23, 30, 35); DiGiantomasso et al. (US 2013/0073957 A1) (Par’s. 94, 132, 136); Glazier (US 2009/0298039 A1) (abstract, Par’s. 31-32). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-14 and 16-22 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract limitations such as elements of the feedback, characteristics of the displayed avatar, scores, display of feedback, and assessing the user’s spoken response. Accordingly, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claims Allowable over the Prior Art
3. The claims are allowable over the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, alone and in combination, does not recite the particular combination of elements in independent claims 2, 8 and 15. Specifically, Redlich and Glazier disclose utilizing an avatar to provide prompts to a user to solicit a user response. However, these references do not recite the particular analysis of the user response, including how accurately the user spoke key elements corresponding to the avatar and the challenge, how confident the user sounded, generating a score, and indicating which key elements the user accurately spoke and providing feedback on the user’s style, as claimed.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday Eastern.
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, Xuan Thai, can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights