DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, spell out abbreviation of “3D”.
Claim 20 has similar issue.
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 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” includes transitory signals.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) 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 is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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), 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 limitations are:
“a module for capturing user input” in claim 14.
“a module for analyzing” in claim 15.
“a module for automatically selecting” in claim 16.
“a user interface element for defining user-generated animation” in claim 19.
“a selection mechanism configured to allow the user to select” in claim 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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 2, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, 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).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 19-20, they are interpreted with invoking 35 USC 112(f). However, there is no corresponding structure found for those “means”.
“a module for capturing user input” in claim 14.
“a module for analyzing” in claim 15.
“a module for automatically selecting” in claim 16.
“a user interface element for defining user-generated animation” in claim 19.
“a selection mechanism configured to allow the user to select” in claim 20.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS - Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
According to fee schedule (SB06 filed on 3/25/2025), claim 13 is filed as a dependent claim. However, the claim is presented with computer-readable medium CRM apparatus claim preamble comprising features from independent method claims.
Applicant may clarify the claim 13 is an apparatus type independent claim or a method type dependent claim.
Claims 14-19 depend on claim 13, therefore are rejected for the same reason as above.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barlier (US 12,045,923).
Referring to claim 1, Barlier discloses a method for sharing emotions in a communication media (fig. 6T, messaging), comprising:
creating or importing a 3D avatar (fig. 6T, avatar 659; 56:17-23, 3D avatar);
defining emotion-mojis (fig. 6N, objects 644) by associating
during communication (fig. 6RA, messaging) within the communication media, selecting an emotion-moji (fig. 6N, select object 645) and initiating the playback (fig. 6SC, preview avatar 659) of the corresponding animation (visual and/or audio) for the user’s 3D avatar.
As to claim 2, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein personalizing the 3D avatar comprises
modifying physical features (fig. 6RA, face photography view) and
applying visual customizations (skins) (fig. 6S, recorder emoji puppet)
As to claim 3, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
capturing (fig. 6RA, bring face into view for recording) user input through a webcam (video) and microphone (audio) in real-time;
analyzing (42:23-33, analyze facial expression) the captured user input to infer the user’s emotional state;
automatically selecting an emotion-emoji (42:23-33, update avatar preview 646) based on the inferred emotional state, and
initiating (fig. 6T, display 643) the playback of the corresponding animation (visual and/or audio) for the user’s 3D avatar.
As to claim 4, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the captured user input utilizes facial expression recognition algorithm (42:23-33, analyze image to identify facial expression)
As to claim 5, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
defining a user-generated animation (fig. 6RA, emoji puppets) by recording (fig. 6RA, recording; 43:50-44:49) the user’s
associating the user-generated animation with a specific emotion (fig. 6S, animated virtual avatar in interface 643).
As to claim 6, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, comprising associating pre-defined audio sounds (60:32-54, audio) with specific emotions.
As to claim 7, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting an emotion-moji (fig. 6P, select virtual avatar) comprises selecting from a user interface element (fig. 6P, display 601) and displaying visual representations of the emotion-mojis.
As to claim 8, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting an emotion-moji comprises designating a subset of participants (fig. 7A, John’s avatar 700) in the communication session to view the playback of the corresponding animation for the user’s 3D avatar.
As to claim 9, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, comprising associating a user-recorder audio sound (fig. 9B, recorded sound 924) with the user-generated animation.
As to claim 10, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D avatar is operable within a downloadable software application (fig. 6A, message app 603/604)
As to claim 11, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communication media comprises chat, video call, and audio call functionalities (fig. 6B, chat).
As to claim 12, Barlier discloses the method of claim 1, comprising providing a user interface element (fig. 6B, display 601) to allow the user to designate a subset of participants (fig. 6N, select user 605; fig. 6C, John) in the communication session to view the playback of the animation for the user’s 3D avatar.
As to claim 13, Barlier discloses a CRM storing instructions which, when executed by a processor (fig. 1A, processor 120) of a communication application (fig. 1A, application 136), perform the method of claim 1.
As to claim 14, Barlier discloses the CRM of claim 13, comprising a module (fig. 1A, peripherals interface 118) for capturing user input through a webcam and microphone (fig. 1, camera 175, microphone 113).
As to claim 15, Barlier discloses the CRM of claim 13, comprising a module (fig. 1A, application 137, instant messaging module 141) for analyzing the captured user input to infer the user’s emotional state.
As to claim 16, Barlier discloses the CRM of claim 13, comprising a module (fig. 1A, application 137, instant messaging module 141) for automatically selecting an emotion-moji (42:23-38, updated avatar) based on the inferred emotional state.
As to claim 18, Barlier discloses the CRM of claim 13, comprising an in-app shop (fig. 6AA, select emoji puppets) where user can
As to claim 19, Barlier discloses the CRM of claim 13, comprising
a user interface element (fig. 6RA, device 600) for defining user-generated animations (fig. 6RA, recording face) and
wherein the user interface element allows the user to record
Referring to claim 20, Barlier discloses a user interface for emotional communication application, comprising:
a main communication window (fig. 6A, display 601) displaying video feed or avatars of participants in a communication session (fig. 6C, messaging with John);
an avatar panel (fig. 6L, emoji puppets) displaying a user’s 3D avatar (fig. 6N, emoji puppet 646), wherein the 3D avatar is customizable with visual elements;
an emotion-mojis bar (fig. 6N, object selections 645) displaying a collection of emotion-mojis (fig. 6N, avatars 644), each emotion-moji represented by an icon visually depicting an associated emotion (fig. 6T); and
a selection mechanism (fig. 6R, select emoji puppet 659) to allow the user to select an emotion-moji (fig. 6T, object 665) from the emotion-mojis bar, wherein selecting an emotion-moji initiates playback of a corresponding animation (fig. 6V, send message 670) .
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlier in view of Lee (US 11,798,246).
As to claim 17, Barlier discloses the CRM of claim 16.
Lee discloses whereby the automatic selection of the emotion is generated by a training machine learning algorithm (14:5-14, machine learning).
Barlier and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in generating 3D avatars. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Barlier and Lee before him or her to modify the automatic selection of Barlier to include using trained machine learning for selection of Lee, thereafter the avatar is selected by trained machine learning model. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of improved 3D avatar generation (14:2-67) as suggested by Lee. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barlier with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
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 .
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See M.P.E.P 707.05(c).
US 12,070,682 discloses 3D avatar plugin and generations.
US 12,002,139 discloses facial expression animation using neural networks.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
