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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites “the another participant”. Although this is lack of antecedent basis, it is obvious that a conversation implies is at least between two participants, so an objection is given opposed to a rejection. Claim should be amended to recite “a another participant” 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
“processing unit” in claims 1-9 and 17-20 (corresponding structure specification [0063-0065] and [0144])
“imaging unit” in claim 10 (corresponding structure specification [0063-0065])
“display unit” in claim 11 (corresponding structure specification [0063-0065])
“conversion unit” in claims 11-13 (corresponding structure specification [0063-0065])
“speech output unit” in claims 14-15 (corresponding structure specification [0063-0065])
“speech processing unit” in claims 14 and 16 (corresponding structure specification [0063-0065])
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 13, 16, 19 and 20 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.
The processing unit in claims 1, 19 and 20 does not recite a combination of elements, and the unit only performs a single function. (see corresponding 112a rejection below)
Likewise claims 2-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are dependents of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the conversion unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the speech processing unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 is directed to a program, and programs per se are not patent eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106 I: “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories:
vi. a computer program per se, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72.”
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitations of estimates a degree of dominance of a participant in a conversation, on a basis of a face image of the participant participating in the conversation is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The step can be performed by a person observing the conversation to determine the degree of dominance based on the which participant is more talkative. Nothing in the claim elements excludes the limitation from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 19-20 each recite an abstract idea.
Analysis of claims 2-10 and 17-18 are elements that can be performed in the mind and therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” of abstract ideas
Claims 11-16 are integrated into a practical application. Claims 11-16 recite transformations of images and speech that cannot be performed in the mind. Thus, the claims 11-16 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-16 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019-061594 A to Fukumoto.
Claim 1. Fukumoto teaches An information processing apparatus comprising a processing unit [0019] video conference apparatus 20
that estimates a degree of dominance of a participant in a conversation, [0094-0096] degree on contribution
[0029] The evaluation and analysis unit 16 has a function of performing various evaluations and scoring on the content of the conference in real time or ex post facto.
on a basis of a face image of the participant participating in the conversation. [0092-0094] the meeting may be analyzed on the basis of the expressions and movements (dozing, performing work unrelated to the meeting, and the like) of the attendees grasped by the image recognition unit…evaluation score for each item
Claim 2. Fukumoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit estimates the degree of dominance of the participant, on a basis of an expression action of the participant. [0092-0094] the meeting may be analyzed on the basis of the expressions and movements (dozing, performing work unrelated to the meeting, and the like) of the attendees grasped by the image recognition unit…evaluation score for each item
Claim 5. Fukumoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit estimates the degree of dominance, on a basis of an expression action of the participant of a time when the participant is speaking, [0092-0094] the meeting may be analyzed on the basis of the expressions and movements (dozing, performing work unrelated to the meeting, and the like) of the attendees grasped by the image recognition unit…evaluation score for each item
and an expression action of the participant of a time when the participant is not speaking, the expression actions being recognized on a basis of the face image. [0096]…in a case where it is evaluated that the efficiency of the conference is lowered, such as a case where there are many negative emotion flags or a case where the number of attendees who perform other work or are dozing increases, for a certain attendee even though the utterance time is long (the number of utterances is large), another utterance or a comment or a message prompting another speaker may be displayed on the screen of the video conference apparatus 20.
Claim 17. Fukumoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit matches the participant with the another participant participating in the conversation, in accordance with the degree of dominance of the participant. [0096] other attendees such as a moderator or a facilitator of the conference may be designated, and a message or a voice such as "How do Mr. ◯ ◯ think?" or "Do you want to take a break?" may be output. Note that, regardless of the evaluation or the degree of contribution of a specific attendee to the speech, for example, in a case where a specific emotion flag such as "tired" or "not tired" is attached by a certain number or more of attendees, a message or a voice such as "Do you want to take a break once?" may be output.
Claim 19. An information processing method implemented by a processing unit of an information processing apparatus, the information processing method comprising: estimating a degree of dominance of a participant in a conversation, on a basis of a face image of the participant participating in the conversation. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 1. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 20. A program for causing a computer to function as: a processing unit that estimates a degree of dominance of a participant in a conversation, on a basis of a face image of the participant participating in the conversation. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 1. See the above analysis and rationale.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-061594 A to Fukumoto in view of US 2015/0044649 A1 to Voss et al., hereinafter, “Voss”.
Claim 3. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach detects the expression action of the participant on a basis of a facial landmark detected from the face image. Voss, in the field of behavior detection teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing unit detects the expression action of the participant on a basis of a facial landmark detected from the face image. [0030] Returning to FIG. 3, an expression recognition module 306 detects expression events by processing speech, facial expressions, or their underlying facial action units, for example based on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS; proposed by Ekman & Friesen in "Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement", Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 1978) that categorizes movement of muscles in the face, that may be relevant to further processing; for example, the module can use landmarks located by the face tracker to determine when an examinee is talking, which may in a later step be interpreted as misconduct behavior.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Voss [0002-0005] because it is therefore desirable to provide automated tools to help detect behavior from participants.
Claim 4. Voss further teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing unit detects the expression action of the participant from a combination of expression action elements. Voss [0030] Returning to FIG. 3, an expression recognition module 306 detects expression events by processing speech, facial expressions, or their underlying facial action units, for example based on the Facial Action Coding System (FACS; proposed by Ekman & Friesen in "Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement", Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 1978) that categorizes movement of muscles in the face, that may be relevant to further processing; for example, the module can use landmarks located by the face tracker to determine when an examinee is talking, which may in a later step be interpreted as misconduct behavior.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-061594 A to Fukumoto in view of US 2022/0210208 A1 to Lieberman.
Claim 6. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach acquires a degree of dominance of another participant in the conversation, the another participant participating in the conversation. Lieberman, in the field of analyzing participants behavior of online conversations teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit acquires a degree of dominance of another participant in the conversation, the another participant participating in the conversation, [0135] At operation 304 conversation analyzer 300 determines, based on the start/stop timestamps, a talking time and a talking time percentage for every participant, and stores these percentages in analysis database 350. The talking time is the total amount of time the participant was talking during the time the participant was in the conversation. The talking time percentage is calculated by dividing the total time in which the participant was talking by the total time the participant participated in the conversation.
and estimates the degree of dominance of the participant as a value indicating a ratio to the degree of dominance of the another participant. [0137] At operation 306 conversation analyzer 300 determines, for each conversation participant, the rate of change in talk time over the course of the conversation. For example, if during the first third of the conversation a particular participant talked ten percent of the time, in the middle third of the conversation twenty percent of the time, and in the last third of the conversation thirty percent of the time, the participant's talking time would be classified as “increasing”. Other classifications include “steady”, “decreasing”, and “random”. Conversation analyzer 300 stores the rate of change classification in analysis database 350.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Lieberman [0011] because there is therefore a need for a social networking application that enables and encourages social conversations between people in a manner that better meets people's social needs and desires.
Claim 18. Lieberman further teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 17, wherein, regarding a tendency of the degree of dominance, the processing unit performs matching between the participant and the another participant whose tendency is opposite from the tendency of the participant, the another participant participating in the conversation. [0127] Conversation analyzer 300 determines the following attributes for each participant in a conversation …(viii) tendency to stop talking when interrupted by others, i.e., to be silenced by others, (ix) tendency to cause others to stop talking when interrupting them, i.e., to silence others
[0133] At operation 302 conversation analyzer 300 determines, for each conversation participant, when the participant is talking and when the participant is silent.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-061594 A to Fukumoto in view of JP 2013-008114 A to Kazuhiro.
Claim 7. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach when the expression action of the participant of the time when the participant is not speaking is an expression action from which the participant is regarded as actively participating in the conversation, the processing unit increases the degree of dominance of the participant. Kazuhiro, in the field of conference quality evaluation teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, when the expression action of the participant of the time when the participant is not speaking is an expression action from which the participant is regarded as actively participating in the conversation, the processing unit increases the degree of dominance of the participant. [0038-0048], [0057-0058] evaluates using a score that adds (or subtracts) points to the degree of dominance based on utterance content and facial expressions of the attendees
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Kazuhiro [Problem to be Solved] to optimize attendants by evaluating the whole conference by evaluating not only an attendant who speaks, but also attitudes of other attendants, improving evaluation precision while facilitating the evaluation of the attitudes of other attendants by decreasing the number of evaluation points, and evaluating the quality of the conference from moment to moment without making the attendants aware of being evaluated.
Claim 8. Kazuhiro further teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, when the expression action of the participant is nodding, quickly responding, or smiling, the processing unit determines that the expression action of the participant is an expression action from which the participant is regarded as actively participating in the conversation. [0057-0058] lists the actions, emotions and postures that are evaluated for the video conference
[0043] Examples of the invention evaluation results include:- Emotional speech (good)- Emotional speech (poor)- No-speech state (interpreted as not actively participating)- Proprietary speech
Claim 9. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach when the expression action of the participant of the time when the participant is not speaking is an expression action from which the participant is regarded as not actively participating in the conversation, the processing unit lowers the degree of dominance of the participant. Kazuhiro, in the field of conference quality evaluation teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, when the expression action of the participant of the time when the participant is not speaking is an expression action from which the participant is regarded as not actively participating in the conversation, the processing unit lowers the degree of dominance of the participant. [0038-0048], [0057-0058] evaluates using a score that adds (or subtracts) points to the degree of dominance based on utterance content and facial expressions of the attendees
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Kazuhiro [Problem to be Solved] to optimize attendants by evaluating the whole conference by evaluating not only an attendant who speaks, but also attitudes of other attendants, improving evaluation precision while facilitating the evaluation of the attitudes of other attendants by decreasing the number of evaluation points, and evaluating the quality of the conference from moment to moment without making the attendants aware of being evaluated.
Claim 10. Kazuhiro further teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein, when the expression action of the participant is an expression action of pressing lips, or when a line of sight is out of a direction of the imaging unit capturing the face image, the expression action of the participant is determined to be an expression action from which the participant is regarded as not actively participating in the conversation. [0057-0058] lists the actions, emotions and postures that are evaluated for the video conference
[0043] Examples of the invention evaluation results include:- Emotional speech (good)- Emotional speech (poor)- No-speech state (interpreted as not actively participating)- Proprietary speech
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-061594 A to Fukumoto in view of JP 2020-021025 A to Nakagawa et al., hereinafter, “Nakagawa”.
Claim 11. Fukumoto teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display unit that displays a face image of another participant participating in the conversation[FIG. 3]
Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach a conversion unit that changes part of the face image of the another participant displayed on the display unit in accordance with the degree of dominance of the participant in the conversation, to convert an expression of the another participant. Nakagawa, in the field of analyzing the image and speech of a user during a video call teaches and a conversion unit that changes part of the face image of the another participant displayed on the display unit in accordance with the degree of dominance of the participant in the conversation, to convert an expression of the another participant. [0072] For example, in a case where it is estimated that the user A is angry with respect to the user B as a result of the language analysis processing regarding the speech content of the user A, the video / audio rewriting unit 150 modifies the audio so as to convert the speech content of the user A into a softer expression, or modifies the video so as to convert the facial expression of the user A into a softer facial expression.
[0038] When it is not necessary to rewrite the images or voices of both users, the images and videos of the respective users are transmitted to the user terminals 200 of the other party by Peer to Peer without passing through the video call server 100
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Nakagawa [Problem to be Solved] to transmit a user's voice or video without deteriorating real-time performance with controlling as needed, in communication between users via voice or video.
Claim 12. Nakagawa further teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the conversion unit changes a mouth corner in the face image of the another participant. [0072] … convert the facial expression of the user A into a softer facial expression.
Claim 13. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach the conversion unit changes part of the face image of the participant or the another participant, to make the degree of dominance of the participant satisfy a preset condition. Nakagawa, in the field of analyzing the image and speech of a user during a video call teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the conversion unit changes part of the face image of the participant or the another participant, to make the degree of dominance of the participant satisfy a preset condition. [0072]… modifies the video so as to convert the facial expression of the user A into a softer facial expression. As a result, the video call system can change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation of the emotion becomes smaller, and can avoid the trouble of the user feeling.
[0037] The video call server 100 detects the video or the voice indicating the speech of the user in the communication between both the user terminals 200, and rewrites the video or the voice as necessary and presents the video or the voice to each user in a case where it is determined that it is not desirable to present the video or the voice as it is to the user of the other party according to the detection result. Examiner interprets “it is determined that it is not desirable to present the video or the voice as it is to the user of the other party according to the detection result” to be degree of dominance.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Nakagawa [Problem to be Solved] to transmit a user's voice or video without deteriorating real-time performance with controlling as needed, in communication between users via voice or video.
Claim 14. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach a speech output unit that outputs a speech of the another participant participating in the conversation. Nakagawa, in the field of analyzing the image and speech of a user during a video call teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a speech output unit that outputs a speech of the another participant participating in the conversation; [0036] The user terminals 200 (200A, 200B) are terminals of users who are parties to communication by a video call, and are, for example, smartphones, tablet computers, PCs ( Personal Computer ), or the like. Video calls are well-known to output speech of participants in the conversation.
and a speech processing unit that changes voice quality of the speech of the another participant output from the speech output unit, in accordance with the degree of dominance of the participant in the conversation. [0072] For example, in a case where it is estimated that the user A is angry with respect to the user B as a result of the language analysis processing regarding the speech content of the user A, the video / audio rewriting unit 150 modifies the audio so as to convert the speech content of the user A into a softer expression, or modifies the video so as to convert the facial expression of the user A into a softer facial expression. As a result, the video call system can change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation of the emotion becomes smaller, and can avoid the trouble of the user feeling. Examiner interprets “change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation of the emotion becomes smaller” to be changing voice quality.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Nakagawa [Problem to be Solved] to transmit a user's voice or video without deteriorating real-time performance with controlling as needed, in communication between users via voice or video.
Claim 15. Nakagawa further teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the speech output unit changes voice quality of the speech of the another participant by adopting a pitch shift or an equalizer. [0072] As a result, the video call system can change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation (understood to be pitch shift) of the emotion becomes smaller, and can avoid the trouble of the user feeling. Examiner interprets “change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation of the emotion becomes smaller” to be changing voice quality.
Claim 16. Fukumoto fails to explicitly teach the speech processing unit changes voice quality of a speech of the participant or the another participant, to make the degree of dominance of the participant satisfy a preset condition. Nakagawa, in the field of analyzing the image and speech of a user during a video call teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the speech processing unit changes voice quality of a speech of the participant or the another participant, to make the degree of dominance of the participant satisfy a preset condition. [0072] As a result, the video call system can change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation of the emotion becomes smaller, and can avoid the trouble of the user feeling. Examiner interprets “change the speech and expression of the user in a direction in which the undulation of the emotion becomes smaller” to be changing voice quality.
[0037] The video call server 100 detects the video or the voice indicating the speech of the user in the communication between both the user terminals 200, and rewrites the video or the voice as necessary and presents the video or the voice to each user in a case where it is determined that it is not desirable to present the video or the voice as it is to the user of the other party according to the detection result. Examiner interprets “it is determined that it is not desirable to present the video or the voice as it is to the user of the other party according to the detection result” to be degree of dominance.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukumoto with the teachings of Nakagawa [Problem to be Solved] to transmit a user's voice or video without deteriorating real-time performance with controlling as needed, in communication between users via voice or video.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following:
Fitzsimmons et al. US 2015/0181020 A1 [0018] (b) who is talking during the conversation and conversely (c) who is a silent participant during multi-party discussions such as a business conference call,
Olguin Olguin et al. US 9443521 B1 [col. 4, lines 33-40] We describe a real-time meeting visualization application that provides feedback to participants in a conversation and displays information such as: dominance (percentage of total speaking time by each participant), number of turns across participants, and overall meeting effectiveness.
Lee et al. US 20220245389 A1 [0073] FIG. 6 shows 13 AUs based on Ekman's FACS based on face landmarks, and shows the results of mapping the combinations of AUs accompanying 6 emotions based on FACS.
Mireles et al. US 2021/0195142 [0042] the facial expression extractor can implement a facial action coding system to detect and represent…(a plurality of action elements)
Moon et al. US 2021/0039251 A1 [0196] The face emotion recognizer 823 can detect the face area of the user from the input image data and recognize expression landmark point information which is feature points configuring the facial expression, thereby recognizing the expression of the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELOMIA L GILLIARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1681. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/DELOMIA L GILLIARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights