DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12, 14 and 16 end with a semicolon instead of a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9 and 11-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (Pub No US 2024/03046728) in view of “Multilingual Text-to-Speech (TTS) app for Twitch on Windows”, Techygrrrl’s Blog, published 09/30/2022 (https://blog.techygrrrl.stream/multilingual-tts-twitch). Hereinafter, referenced as Casado and Techy, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Nagano discloses a content generation device for generating a content to be distributed by a content distribution server, comprising:
an input unit that inputs the content (Paragraph [0300] figure 1; cloud server that processes the content);
a comment acquisition unit that acquires a plurality of comments posted on the content distributed by the content distribution server (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; acquire comment list S141), the comments posted by one or more viewers of the content and/or a distributor of the content (Paragraphs [0098]-[0101]; e.g. player comments);
a voice synthesis unit that generates a voice from the comment (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; text to speech voice synthesis processing S142);
a generation unit that generates a character content including a character or character data to perform an action according to the voice (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; generate avatar S150, wherein the generated avatar opens its mouth according to the utterance; paragraph [0168]);
and a synthesis unit that generates a distribution content with the character content superimposed on the content (Paragraphs [0123] [0162] [0273] figures 2E and 9A; distribute commented video S171, wherein the virtual commentator, e.g. avatar, is superimposed over the video).
While Nagano discloses a voice synthesis unit that generates a voice from the comment (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; text to speech voice synthesis processing S142), it is noted that Nagano is silent to explicitly disclose generating a voice from each comment in order of arrival of the comments.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Techy discloses generating a voice from each comment in order of arrival of the comments (Pages 3 and 4; synchronous reading of the chat messages implementing a Text-to-Speech app, e.g. voice synthesis of each comment. See vimeo demo on page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Techy, for the predictable result of preventing messages from being read on top of each other (Techy – page 4).
Regarding claim 2, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; moreover, Nagano discloses that the voice synthesis unit generates a voice (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; text to speech voice synthesis processing S142) with a voice quality different for each type of comment or each comment poster (Paragraphs [0214] [0292]; different tone intensities, wherein it is possible to express a sound difference between speaking in a direction toward the viewer and speaking in a direction 90 degrees different from the direction toward the viewer, a sound difference between speaking from a distance and speaking near the ear, a state in which the virtual commentator approaches/moves away, etc.),
and the generation unit generates the character content including a character corresponding to the voice quality or data on the character (Paragraph [0105] figures 2B, 2E and 9A; generated avatar S150 may be a girl, boy, male, or female as selected by the user).
Regarding claim 3, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 2; moreover, Nagano discloses that at least either of the voice quality and the character is specified by the poster of the comment (Paragraph [0105] figures 2B, 2E and 9A; generated avatar S150 may be a girl, boy, male, or female as selected by the user).
Regarding claim 4, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; moreover, Nagano discloses that the generation unit generates the character content including a character or character data to perform an action according to the content of the comment (Paragraph [0105] figures 2B, 2E and 9A; generated avatar S150 may be a girl, boy, male, or female as selected by the user).
Regarding claim 6, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; moreover, Nagano discloses that the generation unit generates the character content including a character or character data to perform an action according to the comment posting status (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; generate avatar S150, wherein the generated avatar opens its mouth according to the utterance for users that posted a comment, e.g. posting status; paragraph [0168]).
Regarding claim 8, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; moreover, Nagano discloses that the voice synthesis unit generates a voice with a tempo according to the content and length of the comment (Paragraph [0214]; in a case where the viewer A10 is relaxed, a comment or a comment voice having a calm content and tone may be generated, and in a case where the viewer A10 is excited, a comment or a comment voice having a more intensified content and tone may be generated. Wherein multiple comments may be different lengths; paragraphs [0148] [0226] figure 16C).
Regarding claim 9, Nagano and Techy disclose all the limitations of claim 9; therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Nagano and Techy disclose all the limitations of claim 11; therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; however, it is noted that Nagano is silent to explicitly disclose that the voice synthesis unit extracts a number of comments readable in a given time in order of arrival of the comments.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Techy discloses that the voice synthesis unit extracts a number of comments readable in a given time (Page 4; in order for a message to begin being read aloud, the previous message is finished being read) in order of arrival of the comments (Pages 3 and 4; synchronous reading of the chat messages implementing a Text-to-Speech app, e.g. voice synthesis of each comment. See vimeo demo on page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Techy, for the predictable result of preventing messages from being read on top of each other (Techy – page 4).
Regarding claim 13, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; however, it is noted that Nagano is silent to explicitly disclose that the voice synthesis unit synthesizes the voice so that a read-out time of each comment falls within a specific time.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Techy discloses that the voice synthesis unit synthesizes the voice so that a read-out time (Page 4; in order for a message to begin being read aloud, the previous message is finished being read) of each comment falls within a specific time (Pages 3 and 4; synchronous reading of the chat messages implementing a Text-to-Speech app, e.g. voice synthesis of each comment. See vimeo demo on page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Techy, for the predictable result of preventing messages from being read on top of each other (Techy – page 4).
Regarding claims 14-15, Nagano and Techy disclose all the limitations of claims 14-15; therefore, claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 12-13, respectively.
Regarding claims 16-17, Nagano and Techy disclose all the limitations of claims 16-17; therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 12-13, respectively.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano and Techy further in view of Casado et al. (Pub No US 2016/0225373). Hereinafter, referenced as Casado.
Regarding claim 7, Nagano and Techy disclose the content generation device according to Claim 1; moreover, Nagano discloses that the voice synthesis unit temporarily stops generating a voice (Paragraph [0227] figure 16B; utterance interruption request based on an event high priority, e.g. goal).
However, it is noted that Nagano and Techy are silent to explicitly disclose that a voice synthesis unit temporarily stops generating any voice while a distributor is speaking.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Casado discloses that a voice synthesis unit temporarily stops generating any voice while a distributor is speaking (Paragraphs [0017] [0020] [0021] figure 1; interrupting output of the speech synthesis module when the user speaks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagano and Techy by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Casado, for the predictable result of avoiding overlapping multiple audio dialogs that may be difficult to understand and confusing to the user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights