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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 labels two separate black boxes as “AI processing module” when the specification only recites one. See, for example, at least para. 67-76 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites the term “AI”. The first instance an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism should be accompanied by the fully written term.
The specification improperly does not include oxford commas in the many lists recited throughout the specification. This decreases clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are inconsistently formatted causing decreases in clarity. Claims 1 and 2 lump multiple limitations together when each limitation is supposed to be begin on a new line. Additionally, the term “and” at the end of a limitation is only supposed to be at the end of the penultimate limitation to mark that the next limitation is the last. Lastly, the claims are routinely missing oxford commas.
Claim 1 is missing the term “a” preceding “personalized experience”.
Claim 10 misspells the term “feedback” as two words.
Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the AI control system is configured to implement intelligent interaction and personalized experience of the story machine body (1)” in claim 1.
“an AI processing module which is responsible for identifying, understanding and analyzing the voice inputted by the children, judging whether the answers of the children are correct or not by a natural language processing algorithm and a machine learning model, and determining the story scenario trends according to an answer result” in claim 2.
“an index unit which is configured to establish an index system for the story resources to facilitate quick positioning and retrieval of specific story contents” in claim 3.
“an updating unit which is configured to connect an external data source to realize updating and expansion of the story resources” in claim 3.
“a semantic understanding unit which is configured to carry out semantic understanding on the text outputted by the voice identification unit based on a natural language processing technology” in claim 8.
“a learning and decision-making unit which is configured to carry out learning and analysis on behavior patterns of the children by a machine learning model according to use habits and interactive performance of the children” in claim 8.
“a process management unit which is responsible for managing the whole use process of the story machine body (1), ensuring that the whole process is orderly carried out according to a predetermined logic from the selection and playing process of the story to the insertion and ending of an interactive link, and providing smooth use experience for the children” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “the AI control system is configured to implement intelligent interaction and personalized experience of the story machine body (1)” in claim 1, “an AI processing module which is responsible for identifying, understanding and analyzing the voice inputted by the children, judging whether the answers of the children are correct or not by a natural language processing algorithm and a machine learning model, and determining the story scenario trends according to an answer result” in claim 2, “a semantic understanding unit which is configured to carry out semantic understanding on the text outputted by the voice identification unit based on a natural language processing technology” in claim 8, and “a learning and decision-making unit which is configured to carry out learning and analysis on behavior patterns of the children by a machine learning model according to use habits and interactive performance of the children” in claim 8 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. For instance, Fig. 3 illustrates the two AI processing modules as black boxes while para. 9, 16, 19, 42, 43, 53, 54, 66, 73, 76, 99, 100, 110, 111, and 121 merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. In particular, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful description for any algorithm, especially any algorithm amounting to artificial intelligence and machine learning. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitations “an index unit which is configured to establish an index system for the story resources to facilitate quick positioning and retrieval of specific story contents” in claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. For instance, the drawings are silent regarding an indexing unit while para. 22 and 79 merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 4-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitations “an updating unit which is configured to connect an external data source to realize updating and expansion of the story resources” in claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. For instance, the drawings are silent regarding an updating unit while para. 23 and 80 merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 4-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim limitations “a process management unit which is responsible for managing the whole use process of the story machine body (1), ensuring that the whole process is orderly carried out according to a predetermined logic from the selection and playing process of the story to the insertion and ending of an interactive link, and providing smooth use experience for the children” in claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2181(II)(B). In particular, the disclosure merely recites that the function is performed in results-based language without providing a description of the steps, calculations, or formulas for performing the claimed functionality. For instance, the drawings are silent regarding a process management unit while para. 45 and 102 merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claim 10 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the term “AI”. This is construed to be an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism. Where an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism unaccompanied by the fully written term is used in a claim to identify or describe a material or product, the claim scope is uncertain since the abbreviation, acronym, or initialism cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. It is noted that the first instance of an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism should be accompanied by the fully written term. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “AI” is construed to mean “artificial intelligence”. Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear how “the batteries are installed in the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12)”. The drawings are silent regarding a battery port, let alone anywhere to install the batteries in the front housing and the rear housing. The specification also does not aid understanding as it merely recites similar language as the claim. See at least para. 8, 65. Furthermore, para. 18, 49, 75, and 106 recite that the batteries are “built-in” indicating that the batteries are in the machine, not installed in the front housing and the rear housing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the batteries are construed as in the machine. Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “intelligent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intelligent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the question-and-answer link" in line 31 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 3-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “massive” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “massive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 3-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Dependent claims 4-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “quick” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quick” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 4-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “normal use distance” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal use distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claims 7-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The term “smooth use” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth use” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Dependent claim 10 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 8, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “the AI control system is configured to implement intelligent interaction and personalized experience of the story machine body (1)” in claim 1, “an AI processing module which is responsible for identifying, understanding and analyzing the voice inputted by the children, judging whether the answers of the children are correct or not by a natural language processing algorithm and a machine learning model, and determining the story scenario trends according to an answer result” in claim 2, “a semantic understanding unit which is configured to carry out semantic understanding on the text outputted by the voice identification unit based on a natural language processing technology” in claim 8, and “a learning and decision-making unit which is configured to carry out learning and analysis on behavior patterns of the children by a machine learning model according to use habits and interactive performance of the children” in claim 8 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an index unit which is configured to establish an index system for the story resources to facilitate quick positioning and retrieval of specific story contents” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 4-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an updating unit which is configured to connect an external data source to realize updating and expansion of the story resources” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 4-10 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a process management unit which is responsible for managing the whole use process of the story machine body (1), ensuring that the whole process is orderly carried out according to a predetermined logic from the selection and playing process of the story to the insertion and ending of an interactive link, and providing smooth use experience for the children” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as identified in the rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, just as this computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, as identified above, it also lacks written description under 35 USC 112(a). See MPEP 2153.03(VI). Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claim 10 inherits the deficiencies of its respective parent claims, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a product which fall under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
An AI-based interactive story machine for children, comprising a story machine body (1) and an AI control system, wherein
the story machine body (1) comprises a front housing (11), a rear housing (12), a display screen (13), a loudspeaker (14), a microphone (15), a voice button (16) and an NFC story card (17);
the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12) are connected through a buckle; the display screen (13) is installed in the middle of a side surface of the front housing (11); the loudspeaker (14) and the microphone (15) which are located below the display screen (13) are installed on the side surface of the front housing (11); the voice button (16) is installed on an edge of the side surface of the front housing (11); an inserting opening is formed between top surfaces of the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12), and the NFC story card (17) is inserted into the inserting opening; batteries are installed in the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12); and
the AI control system is configured to implement intelligent interaction and personalized experience of the story machine body (1).
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as it amounts to merely telling an interactive story. Similarly, the collecting, identifying, understanding and analyzing, judging, determining, managing, establishing, updating, analyzing, generating, carrying out semantic understanding, carrying out learning and analysis, and monitoring functions also amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: an AI-based interactive story machine comprising a story machine body and an AI control system (claim 1); the story machine body comprises a front housing, a rear housing, a display screen, a loudspeaker, a microphone, a voice button, and an NFC story card (claim 1); reciting the location of the elements within the story machine body (claim 1); the AI control system comprises a story storage module, an NFC identification module, a display module, an audio output module, a voice input module, an AI processing module, a natural language processing algorithm, a machine learning module, an interaction control module, and a power management module (claim 2); the story storage module comprises a storage unit, an index unit, and an updating unit (claim 3); the NFC identification module comprises a signal sensing unit which is internally provided with an NFC antenna and a related sensing circuit, a data reading unit, and a compatibility unit (claim 4); the display driving module comprising an image conversion unit, a text rendering unit, and an instruction analysis unit (claim 5); the audio output module comprises a signal amplification unit, a sound effect processing unit, and an audio mixing unit (claim 6); the voice input module comprises a voice collection unit, a signal preprocessing unit, and an analog-to-digital conversion unit (claim 7); the AI processing module comprises a voice identification unit, a semantic understanding unit, and a learning and decision-making unit (claim 8); the interaction control module comprises a process management unit, a data coordination unit, and an event triggering unit (claim 9); and the power management module comprises an electric quantity monitoring unit, a charging control unit, and a power distribution unit (claim 10). Although the claims recite the elements identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by at least Fig. 3 which illustrates the modules as non-descript black boxes while the specification insufficiently describes many of the various “modules” and “units” indicating that they amount to conventional elements of a computer. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system as the computer system and its elements are merely recited to be used in the performance of the steps. In other words, the claimed steps do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because they are merely using a computer as a tool to perform a judicial exception as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) since the claims merely recite the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to perform these tasks. See MPEP 2106.04(d). This also evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system as the claimed steps are wholly focused on the judicial exception itself while the computerized elements are merely recited to be used in their performance. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Additionally, the additional elements do not apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that is implementation with a computer. For instance, the claims, and disclosure as a whole, merely recite the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented in the technology, itself. This is evidenced in at least para. 109-114 of the specification which identify that the asserted “beneficial technical effects” are wholly encompassed in the judicial exception being implemented by non-descript “AI intelligent judgment” and a generically disclosed “AI processing module” thus identifying that the AI elements are evidencing the mere use of a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Additionally, as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, the mere inclusion of generically recited computerized elements conventionally configured to perform their conventional functions merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoto Limited (WO 2020/249959, hereinafter referred to as Yoto) in view of Gustman et al. (US 11,107,465 B2, hereinafter referred to as Gustman).
Regarding claim 1, Yoto teaches an interactive story machine for children, comprising a story machine body (1) and a control system (Yoto, Title, Interactive Apparatus, Fig. 1-3 illustrate a story machine body, Fig. 2), wherein
the story machine body (1) comprises a front housing (11) (Yoto, Fig. 1, 11 front), a rear housing (12) (Yoto, Fig. 1, 11 rear), a display screen (13) (Yoto, Fig. 1, display 16), a loudspeaker (14) (Yoto, Fig. 2, speaker 18), a microphone (15) (Yoto, Fig. 2, microphone 22a), a voice button (16) (Yoto, Fig. 1, input device 14, pg. 6, line 16, “Input devices 14 may include user operable buttons”; line 24 of pg. 13 – line 1 of pg. 14, “If the user wishes to activate one of the communication devices 20, e.g. microphone 20a, the user operates the relevant one of the input devices 14 accordingly. The control device 12 receives the associated input and, before activating the microphone 20a, first communicates with the detection device 24 to determine whether the actuation device 22 has been detected. If the determination is negative, the control device 12 will not activate the 30 microphone 20a. If the user has placed the actuation device 22 in close proximity to/ engagement with the apparatus, a positive determination will be made and the control device 12 will activate the microphone 20a.”) and an NFC story card (17) (Yoto, Fig. 1, NFC story card 15);
the display screen (13) is installed in the middle of a side surface of the front housing (11) (Yoto, Fig. 1, display 16); the loudspeaker (14) and the microphone (15) are installed on the side surface of the front housing (11) (Yoto, Fig. 1, 2, output devices 16, 18); the voice button (16) is installed on an edge of the side surface of the front housing (11) (Yoto, Fig. 1, input device 14); an inserting opening is formed between top surfaces of the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12) (Yoto, Fig. 1, slot 17), and the NFC story card (17) is inserted into the inserting opening (Yoto, pg. 8, lines 7-9, “The formation 17 may configured as a slot into which the media object 15 may be inserted, e.g. where the media object 15 is provided as a card.”); batteries are installed in the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12) (Yoto, pg. 6, lines 1-2, “The interactive apparatus 10 may have a battery to provide power thereto”. Under the interpretation provided in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), this is construed as teaching that the battery is in the apparatus.).; and
the control system is configured to implement intelligent interaction and personalized experience of the story machine body (1) (Yoto, pg. 1, lines 15-18, “An attraction of such interactive apparatus is that they permit an active engagement of a child with media to create a play activity as opposed to a passive engagement such as a child simply watching a video or the like.” Pg. 1, lines 21-22, “A child may thus operate with the apparatus to engage with the media to curate their own experiences.”).
Yoto does not explicitly teach the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12) are connected through a buckle and the loudspeaker (14) and the microphone (15) which are located below the display screen (13).
Regarding the front housing (11) and the rear housing (12) are connected through a buckle, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the front housing and the rear housing to be connected through a buckle since it has been held to be within the general skill of a person in the art to select a known fastener on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding the loudspeaker (14) and the microphone (15) which are located below the display screen (13), these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The apparatus would perform the same regardless of the location of the loudspeaker, the microphone, and the display. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the loudspeaker and the microphone to be located below the display screen in Yoto because locations of these elements are merely a design choice that does not functionally relate to the functions claimed and has not been disclosed to solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Yoto does not explicitly teach that the interactive story machine is AI-based and that the control system is an AI control system.
In a related art, Gustman teaches an AI-based interactive story machine with an AI control system (Gustman, Col. 12, lines 58-60, “The multi-media interactive story-telling system relies on artificial intelligence”) using natural language processing (Gustman, Col. 2, lines 49-55, “As users add responses and inquiries to the system and the system continually retrains its machine learning component to improve the accuracy of the natural-language search and retrieval system, the end result is an intelligent interactive video platform for life-like and real-time conversational interaction between contributors and inquirers.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the AI features of Gustman such that the interactive story machine is AI-based with an AI control system because they “facilitate natural conversation between a machine and a human being.” See Gustman at Col. 2, lines 42-43.
Regarding claim 2, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 1, wherein the AI control system comprises:
a story storage module which is configured to store massive story resources (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 15-17, “The associated media may be stored on a computer readable medium of the interactive apparatus and/or may be stored on a remote computer from which the associated media may be downloaded.”);
an NFC identification module which is responsible for identifying the NFC story card (17) and reading story information in the card and performing related interaction settings, and performing data interaction with the NFC story card (17) through a near-field communication technology (Yoto, pg. 3, lines 18-21, “The actuation device may include a passive or active wireless communication tag for detection by the detection device, optionally or preferably the wireless 20 communication tag is a Near Field Communication Tag (NFC Tag) or a Radio Frequency Identification Tag (RFID Tag)”);
a display driving module which is configured to drive the display screen (13) to work to display images and text prompts in a story and related information of an interaction link to the children in a visual mode, receive display instructions from other modules, and convert the display instructions into a signal format that can be identified by the display screen (13) (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 11-13, “The control device may be configured to use the media identifier key to obtain an associated media and provide said associated media to the output device(s).”);
an audio output module which is connected to the loudspeaker (14), and is configured to output audio contents of the story and voice prompts and sound effects in the interaction process, so as to provide auditory experience for the children (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 11-13, “The control device may be configured to use the media identifier key to obtain an associated media and provide said associated media to the output device(s).”);
a voice input module which is connected to the microphone (15), and is configured to collect voice answers of the children, and convert the voice answers into digital signals to facilitate subsequent voice identification and processing (Gustman, Col. 13, lines 24-25, “The system also benefits from existing technologies such as automatic speech recognition”; Col. 14, lines 2-6, “The system takes audiovisual input via the recording device at block 1100. This data is sent to a natural language processor (NLP) classifier 1110 where the text is generated via speech to text analysis and meta data is associated with the text file.”);
an AI processing module which is responsible for identifying, understanding and analyzing the voice inputted by the children, judging whether the answers of the children are correct or not by a natural language processing algorithm and a machine learning model, and determining the story scenario trends according to an answer result (Gustman, Col. 13, lines 24-25, “The system also benefits from existing technologies such as automatic speech recognition”; Col. 14, lines 2-6, “The system takes audiovisual input via the recording device at block 1100. This data is sent to a natural language processor (NLP) classifier 1110 where the text is generated via speech to text analysis and meta data is associated with the text file.”);
an interaction control module which is configured to coordinate interaction work among all the modules of the story machine, manage the story playing process, control the question-and-answer link, and carry out data transmission among the modules (Gustman, Col. 14, lines 28-39, “The processor(s) 1010 may be implemented with one or more general-purpose and/or special-purpose processors. Examples include microprocessors, microcontrollers, DSP processors, and other circuitry that can execute software. Alternatively, or in addition to the one or more general-purpose and/or special-purpose processors, the processor may be implemented with dedicated hardware such as, by way of example, one or more FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Array), PLDs (Programmable Logic Device), controllers, state machines, gated logic, discrete hardware components, or any other suitable circuitry, or any combination of circuits.”); and
a power management module which is configured to manage built-in batteries, comprising battery power monitoring, charging control and stable power supply for other modules (Yoto, pg. 6, lines 4-6, “The control device 12 may be in the form of a processor, a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or other control device configured to control the various components of the interactive apparatus 10.” Pg. 11, lines 15-19, “there may be a control or power supply circuit for the communication devices 20 that may be isolated by the control device 12 from the rest of the interactive apparatus 10 such that the communication devices 20 are inhibited from activation unless the circuit is connected by the control device 12.”);
the story storage module, the NFC identification module, the display driving module, the audio output module, the voice input module, the AI processing module and the interaction control module are all connected to the power management module to obtain power support from the power management module (Yoto, pg. 6, lines 4-6, “The control device 12 may be in the form of a processor, a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or other control device configured to control the various components of the interactive apparatus 10.” Pg. 11, lines 15-19, “there may be a control or power supply circuit for the communication devices 20 that may be isolated by the control device 12 from the rest of the interactive apparatus 10 such that the communication devices 20 are inhibited from activation unless the circuit is connected by the control device 12.”); the NFC identification module is connected to the story storage module so that the read NFC card information can be transmitted to the story storage module to call the story content (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 15-17, “The associated media may be stored on a computer readable medium of the interactive apparatus and/or may be stored on a remote computer from which the associated media may be downloaded.”); the voice input module is connected to the AI processing module so as to transmit the collected voice signals to the AI processing module for analyzing (Gustman, Col. 13, lines 24-25, “The system also benefits from existing technologies such as automatic speech recognition”; Col. 14, lines 2-6, “The system takes audiovisual input via the recording device at block 1100. This data is sent to a natural language processor (NLP) classifier 1110 where the text is generated via speech to text analysis and meta data is associated with the text file.”); the AI processing module is connected to the story storage module, the display driving module and the interaction control module to realize story plot selection, image display control and interaction coordination with other modules (Yoto, pg. 6, lines 4-6, “The control device 12 may be in the form of a processor, a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or other control device configured to control the various components of the interactive apparatus 10.” Gustman also teaches this, Fig. 10, Processor(s) 1010 is connected to all of the elements of the system); the interaction control module is connected to the audio output module and controls the output of story audio and prompt sound effect (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 11-13, “The control device may be configured to use the media identifier key to obtain an associated media and provide said associated media to the output device(s).”); and the display driving module is connected to the display screen (13) (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 11-13, “The control device may be configured to use the media identifier key to obtain an associated media and provide said associated media to the output device(s).”).
Regarding claim 3, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 2, wherein the story storage module comprises:
a storage unit which adopts a built-in mass storage as a physical storage medium, and is responsible for actually storing massive story resources, comprising various types of story data such as fairy tales, fables and science stories, and storing the story data in a digital coding form to provide a data basis for story calling (Yoto, pg. 4, lines 15-17, “The associated media may be stored on a computer readable medium of the interactive apparatus and/or may be stored on a remote computer from which the associated media may be downloaded.”);
an index unit which is configured to establish an index system for the story resources to facilitate quick positioning and retrieval of specific story contents (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 28-29, “Examples of media may include an audio book or music which may be played by the interactive apparatus 10”. An index unit as claimed is inherent in Yoto to orderly play an audio book or music.); and
an updating unit which is configured to connect an external data source to realize updating and expansion of the story resources (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 22-23, “downloading / streaming the associated media from a remote computer, e.g. a server in the cloud,”).
Regarding claim 4, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 3, wherein the NFC identification module comprises:
a signal sensing unit which is internally provided with an NFC antenna and a related sensing circuit, and is configured to sense a near-field communication signal transmitted by the NFC story card (17) when the NFC story card (17) approaches, start an identification process, ensure that communication connection is established with the NFC story card (17) and make preparations for data reading (Yoto, pg. 3, lines 10-12, “detection device detecting the actuation device, e.g. detecting its presence, or that the actuation device is in close proximity to or in physical contact with the interactive apparatus.” Pg. 3, lines 17-20, “The actuation device may include a passive or active wireless communication tag for detection by the detection device, optionally or preferably the wireless 20 communication tag is a Near Field Communication Tag (NFC Tag)”);
a data reading unit which is configured to read story information and related interactive setting data from the NFC story card (17) through an NFC communication protocol (Yoto, pg. 1, lines 20-21, “NFC and/or RFID that can be read by the apparatus to play the media.” Pg. 4, lines 7-8, “The input device(s) may include a reading device for reading a media identifier key present on a media object”); and
a compatibility unit which is responsible for ensuring that the NFC identification module is compatible with the NFC story cards (17) with different standards and formats (Yoto, pg. 14, lines, 19-22, “It will be appreciated that, for embodiments in which the actuation device 22 is 20 combined with the media object 15, the control device 12 will operate to detect the presence of the relevant actuation identifier keys 23a -c, before permitting actuation of the associated communication devices 20a-c.”).
Regarding claim 5, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 4, wherein the display driving module comprises:
an image conversion unit which is configured to receive image data from other modules, and convert the image data into a format that can be directly identified and displayed by the display screen (13) (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 5-8, “The control device 12 may be configured for receiving media and providing the media to the output devices 16, 18 to provide audio and/or visual outputs associated with the media, e.g. generate sounds and visual images on a user operating the input devices 14.”);
a text rendering unit which is responsible for typesetting and rendering the text prompts and dialogue text information in the story according to characteristics of the display screen (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 5-8, “The control device 12 may be configured for receiving media and providing the media to the output devices 16, 18 to provide audio and/or visual outputs associated with the media, e.g. generate sounds and visual images on a user operating the input devices 14.”); and
an instruction analysis unit which is configured to analyze the display instructions from the interaction control module, and determine the type, display position and display duration parameter of the content to be displayed (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 5-8, “The control device 12 may be configured for receiving media and providing the media to the output devices 16, 18 to provide audio and/or visual outputs associated with the media, e.g. generate sounds and visual images on a user operating the input devices 14.”).
Regarding claim 6, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 5, wherein the audio output module comprises:
a signal amplification unit which is connected to the loudspeaker (14), and is configured to receive audio signals from the story storage module or other modules, and carry out power amplification on the audio signals so as to drive the loudspeaker (14) to generate sound with enough volume, thereby ensuring that the children can clearly hear story contents and sound prompts within a normal use distance, and adapting to volume requirements of different environments (Yoto, pg. 6, lines 20-21, “The user inputs may be for… adjusting the properties of output devices 16, e.g. volume”);
a sound effect processing unit which is responsible for carrying out sound effect processing on the audio signals (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 5-8, “The control device 12 may be configured for receiving media and providing the media to the output devices 16, 18 to provide audio and/or visual outputs associated with the media, e.g. generate sounds and visual images on a user operating the input devices 14.”); and
an audio mixing unit which is configured to mix the audio signals according to a certain proportion and rule in a case of a plurality of audio sources (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 5-8, “The control device 12 may be configured for receiving media and providing the media to the output devices 16, 18 to provide audio and/or visual outputs associated with the media, e.g. generate sounds and visual images on a user operating the input devices 14.”).
Regarding claim 7, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 6, wherein the voice input module comprises:
a voice collection unit which is connected to the microphone (15) and is configured to carry out preliminary collection on the sound signals received by the microphone (15) (This is inherent in Yoto and Gustman as it is part of a computerized system that uses a microphone to collect voice input which both Yoto and Gustman do. Gustman goes further with more explicit language regarding voice, Col. 13, lines 24-25, “The system also benefits from existing technologies such as automatic speech recognition”. This is part of automatic speech recognition.);
a signal preprocessing unit which is configured to carry out preprocessing operations comprising noise reduction processing on the collected voice signals, remove environmental background noise by a digital signal processing algorithm, and improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the voice signals (Gustman, Col. 13, lines 24-25, “The system also benefits from existing technologies such as automatic speech recognition”. This is part of automatic speech recognition.); and
an analog-to-digital conversion unit which is configured to convert the preprocessed analog voice signals into digital signals so as to carry out transmission and processing in a digital system (This is inherent in both Yoto and Gustman since they both teach a computerized system collecting speech from a user. It is necessary to convert the analog voice signals to digital signals in order to be processed by the computer.).
Regarding claim 8, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 7, wherein the AI processing module comprises:
a voice identification unit which is configured to identify the digital voice signals transmitted by the voice input module by voice identification algorithm (Gustman, Col. 13, lines 24-25, “The system also benefits from existing technologies such as automatic speech recognition”), and convert voice contents into a text form (Gustman, Col. 14, lines 3-5, “This data is sent to a natural language processor (NLP) classifier 1110 where the text is generated via speech to text analysis”);
a semantic understanding unit which is configured to carry out semantic understanding on the text outputted by the voice identification unit based on a natural language processing technology (Gustman, Col. 2, lines 56-60, “The system disclosed herein provides an intuitive interface for users to record and upload media responses, leveraging machine learning algorithms applied to multiple users to automatically improve the natural language understanding.” Col. 14, lines 3-6, “This data is sent to a natural language processor (NLP) classifier 1110 where the text is generated via speech to text analysis and meta data is associated with the text file.” Col. 13, lines 37-39, “The conversation maintains… semantic… continuity throughout the engagement.” While one of ordinary skill in the art understands that semantic analysis is included in a NLP classifier via natural language understanding, maintaining semantic continuity through the engagement makes this more explicit.); and
a learning and decision-making unit which is configured to carry out learning and analysis on behavior patterns of the children by a machine learning model according to use habits and interactive performance of the children (Gustman, Col. 2, lines 49-52, “As users add responses and inquiries to the system and the system continually retrains its machine learning component to improve the accuracy of the natural-language search and retrieval system”).
Regarding claim 9, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 8, wherein the interaction control module comprises:
a process management unit which is responsible for managing the whole use process of the story machine body (1), ensuring that the whole process is orderly carried out according to a predetermined logic from the selection and playing process of the story to the insertion and ending of an interactive link, and providing smooth use experience for the children (It is noted that “ensuring that the whole process is orderly carried out according to a predetermined logic from the selection and playing process of the story to the insertion and ending of an interactive link, and providing smooth use experience for the children” is merely a nonfunctional result of a process management unit. Thus, Yoto teaches this by teaching the process management unit. Yoto, pg. 6, lines 4-9, “The control device 12 may be in the form of a processor, a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or other control device configured to control the various components of the interactive apparatus 10. The interactive apparatus 10 may have a storage medium including instructions, e.g. software modules and code, for processing by the control device 12 to effect operation of the interactive apparatus 12.”);
a data coordination unit which is configured to coordinate data transmission and sharing among all the modules (Yoto, pg. 7, lines 5-8, “The control device 12 may be configured for receiving media and providing the media to the output devices 16, 18 to provide audio and/or visual outputs associated with the media, e.g. generate sounds and visual images on a user operating the input devices 14.”); and
an event triggering unit which is configured to monitor events that the NFC story card (17) is inserted, the voice button (16) is pressed and the story is played to a specific part in the use process of the story machine body (1), and trigger the operation of the corresponding module according to the type of the events (Yoto, line 30 of pg. 10 – line 4 of pg. 11, “a detection device 24 for detecting the actuation device 22 and the interactive apparatus 10 may be configured such that the communication devices 20 are only permitted to be activated in response to the detection device 24 detecting the actuation device 22 is in close proximity to or in physical contact with the interactive apparatus 10.” Gustman also teaches this, Col. 11, lines 17-19, “the questioner is instructed to press and hold the record button to present a query to the contributor. The system performs speech to text translation and presents the question in text form to the questioner in FIG. 6B.”).
Regarding claim 10, Yoto in view of Gustman teaches the AI-based interactive story machine for children according to claim 9, wherein the power management module comprises:
a charging control unit which is responsible for managing the charging process when the story machine body (1) is connected to an external power supply for charging (Yoto, pg. 6, lines 1-2, “The interactive apparatus 10 may have a battery to provide power thereto and/or may be connected to a mains supply.” Connected to a main supply and having a battery in Yoto includes charging the Yoto’s battery. Thus, Yoto includes a charging control unit.); and
a power distribution unit which is configured to reasonably distribute the electric power outputted by the batteries according to the electric power requirements of all the modules of the story machine body (1) ((Yoto, pg. 6, lines 4-9, “The control device 12 may be in the form of a processor, a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or other control device configured to control the various components of the interactive apparatus 10.” This includes a power distribution unit.).
Yoto does not explicitly teach an electric quantity monitoring unit which is configured to monitor the electric quantity level of the built-in batteries in real time, accurately calculate the percentage of the remaining electric quantity of the batteries by measuring voltage and current parameters of the batteries and applying an electric quantity calculation algorithm, and feed back electric quantity information to other modules, so that a user knows the electric power condition of the story machine body (1) and charges in time.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the interactive apparatus of Yoto to include an electric quantity monitoring unit as claimed because this is a conventional element in most electrical devices with a display, especially computers, so that a user knows the state of charge of the battery and/or how much operating time the device has before requiring a connection to an electrical supply (colloquially referred to as “being plugged in”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gabai et al. (WO 01/69830 A2) discloses AI-based interactive toys that tell stories and have conversations with users using speech recognition identifying that the claim AI functionalities are old and well known.
Li (CN 107180563) discloses an AI-based story machine using NFC cards.
Yoto Limited (US 2022/0233968, US 12,363,518 B2, WO 2021/014122, and US 11,797,247) are closely related to the primary reference.
Boeckle (US 2022/0111300) discloses an interactive educational device that tells stories using NFC cards.
Chen et al. (CN 118860326) discloses an AI-based interactive device that tells stories using NFC cards.
Buzzfeed Review of a Yoto Player and the Yoto Mini illustrates that the claimed housing and body is nearly identical to the Yoto Mini.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights