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 .
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 § 102
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 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 1-4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagano et al. (Pub No US 2024/03046728). Hereinafter, referenced as Nagano.
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 comment posted on the content distributed by the content distribution server (Paragraph [0162] figures 2E and 9A; acquire comment list S141);
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).
Regarding claim 2, Nagano discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses all the limitations of claim 9; therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Nagano discloses all the limitations of claim 11; therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of Casado et al. (Pub No US 2016/0225373). Hereinafter, referenced as Casado.
Regarding claim 7, Nagano discloses 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 is 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 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
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