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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to an application filed on 4/25/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. All pending claims are examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“c) process the first piece of text information using language analysis to determine an interpretation of the first piece of text information,” The “process” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The system for proposing advertisements to users on the internet. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “b) receive a first piece of text information converted from a speech input from the user, d) transmit a second piece of text information for generating vocalized speech data based on the interpretation of the first piece of text information, user preferences, and a personality …”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data.
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure: “information processing system; a) processing circuitry configured to set a voice agent from a plurality of voice agents having different voices and personalities based on a selection input from a user; corresponding to the voice agent”
The limitations comprise generic recited computer elements and software including data manipulation. The use of a “voice agent” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“information processing system; a) processing circuitry configured to set a voice agent from a plurality of voice agents having different voices and personalities based on a selection input from a user; corresponding to the voice agent”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“information processing system; a) processing circuitry configured to set a voice agent from a plurality of voice agents having different voices and personalities based on a selection input from a user; corresponding to the voice agent”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“b) receive a first piece of text information converted from a speech input from the user, d) transmit a second piece of text information for generating vocalized speech data based on the interpretation of the first piece of text information, user preferences, and a personality …”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“information processing system; a) processing circuitry configured to set a voice agent from a plurality of voice agents having different voices and personalities based on a selection input from a user; corresponding to the voice agent”, were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “information processing system; a) processing circuitry configured to set a voice agent from a plurality of voice agents having different voices and personalities based on a selection input from a user; corresponding to the voice agent”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claim is ineligible.
Claim 9: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 17: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a computer-readable medium.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-16, and 18-20, the claims recite elements such as “wherein the user preferences are generated based on analysis of messages associated with the user”, .etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 9-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20150134456 ( BALDWIN) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20120164613 (Jung).
As to claims 1, 9 and 17, Baldwin discloses
An information processing system, comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 1 and associated disclosure) configured to
a) set a voice agent from a plurality of voice agents having different voices and personalities based on a selection input from a user,
(“…digital assistants may act as a direct and/or indirect source of user information for advertisers”, paragraph 10.
“…In another embodiment, avatars 190, 192 can be provided by the digital assistants 150, 152 to facilitate the communication exchanges with users of the devices. The avatars 190, 192 can be of various type including avatars that are depicted to resemble the users or resemble someone according to user preferences”, paragraph 17; paragraph 23; paragraph 28-29),
b) receive a first piece of text information converted from a speech input from the user,
(“…mimicking or otherwise presenting one or more of similar speech patterns, vocabulary, audio pitch, audio volume, and so forth…”, paragraph 19.
“0030] In one embodiment, the analyzing of the user input includes an analysis of speech patterns and/or vocabulary, such as of audio content and/or text that is provided as user input by the user to the first communication device during the first communication exchange. The analysis can be performed utilizing various techniques, including speech recognition, natural language synthesis, and so forth. Various libraries, including local and/or remote libraries can be accessed to facilitate the analysis of the user input….”, paragraph 30),
c) process the first piece of text information using language analysis to determine an interpretation of the first piece of text information, and
(“0030] In one embodiment, the analyzing of the user input includes an analysis of speech patterns and/or vocabulary, such as of audio content and/or text that is provided as user input by the user to the first communication device during the first communication exchange. The analysis can be performed utilizing various techniques, including speech recognition, natural language synthesis, and so forth. Various libraries, including local and/or remote libraries can be accessed to facilitate the analysis of the user input….”, paragraph 30),
d) transmit [ a second piece of text information for generating vocalized speech ] data based on the interpretation of the first piece of text information, user preferences, and a personality corresponding to the voice agent.
(“…In one embodiment, these digital assistants may act as a direct and/or indirect source of user information for advertisers…”, and “…. a digital assistant persona is provided based on numerous cues including direct user input, indirect user input (e.g. body language, vocal cues, language, and so forth), environmental input (e.g., location, other individuals, and so forth), other digital assistant personas, and so forth. In one or more embodiments, marketing techniques are provided for influencing digital assistants to enable more effective advertising and marketing.”, paragraphs 10-11.
“[0017] Each of the devices 110, 112 can have a digital assistant 150, 152, respectively. The digital assistants 150, 152 can each have a digital assistant persona 170, 172 which can control information that is provided by the digital assistants during communication exchanges. In one or more embodiment, the control by the digital assistant persona can be the policies or rules applied by the digital assistant with respect to obtaining information and/or presenting the information. In another embodiment, avatars 190, 192 can be provided by the digital assistants 150, 152 to facilitate the communication exchanges with users of the devices. .The avatars 190, 192 can be of various type including avatars that are depicted to resemble the users or resemble someone according to user preferences…”, paragraph 17.
“…This can include mimicking or otherwise presenting one or more of similar speech patterns, vocabulary, audio pitch, audio volume, and so fort…”, paragraph 19.
“[0021] In one embodiment, the advertising or marketing information can be applied to the digital assistant, such as interweaved into a communication exchange, so that the user may not perceive it as advertising. In one embodiment, the advertising or marketing information is provided by the digital assistant 150 as a response to a question being posed by the user 130”, paragraph 21.
“[0064] In some embodiments, the virtual assistant may perform a user-specified action (e.g., send an e-mail including a link to the weather forecast to my spouse, ring an alarm, etc.) at least in part by using another application program (e.g., an e-mail application program, an alarm application program, etc.) when a corresponding user-specified condition has been met (e.g., when the weather forecast includes rain, when the price of a particular stock falls below a threshold, etc.). In other embodiments, a virtual assistant need not use one or more other application programs to perform the action, as some user-specified actions (e.g., provide information to the user by generating speech) may be performed by the virtual assistant on its own, paragraph 64),
Although, Baldwin discloses “…In one embodiment, these digital assistants may act as a direct and/or indirect source of user information for advertisers…”, and “…. a digital assistant persona is provided based on numerous cues including direct user input, indirect user input (e.g. body language, vocal cues, language, and so forth), environmental input (e.g., location, other individuals, and so forth), other digital assistant personas, and so forth. In one or more embodiments, marketing techniques are provided for influencing digital assistants to enable more effective advertising and marketing.”, paragraphs 10-11. Baldwin does not specifically disclose but Jung discloses
a second piece of vocalized speech data
(“…. For example, user eye movement data may indicate a user interaction with an advertisement at a time when an alertness or attention module 148 measures user heart rate data indicating an increase in alertness or excitedness. In another example, user … device data may indicate a user interaction with a particular segment of a virtual world that is coincident with a certain face pattern test module 160 output and a particular speech or voice test module 156 output. Together, these user-health test function outputs may provide a detailed portrait of a user's response to, for example, an advertisement….”, paragraph 51.
“[0080] Speech can be tested, for example, by measuring voice, song, and/or other vocal utterances of a user (e.g., can a user say the words on a screen, does an advertising slogan come easily to a user's lips, is a jingle catchy such that a user sings it after hearing it, does a user respond out loud to an advertisement, or the like).
[0081] Speech responses to an advertiser-specified attribute 122 such as a jingle, slogan, or design may be gauged from a user's interaction with the advertiser-specified attribute 122. User-application interaction data 132 may demonstrate user interest in the advertiser-specified attribute 122 in the form of speech data (e.g., sounds including words uttered relating to the advertisement), or the like”, paragraph 80 and 81).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jung’s teaching with the teaching of Baldwin. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to generate a piece or segment of speech or voice responsive to user interaction or reaction to advertisement (see Jung abstract).
As to claim 9, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above therefore is rejected in similar manner.
As to claim 17, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above therefore is rejected in similar manner and further the claim comprises
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program which when executed by processing circuitry of an apparatus causes the apparatus to perform a method
([0014] One embodiment of the subject disclosure includes a computer readable storage device comprising executable instructions which, responsive to being executed by a processor of a first communication device, cause the processor to perform operations including providing a first digital assistant to engage in a first communication exchange with a user of the first communication device,…”, Baldwin paragraph 14).
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, Baldwin discloses
wherein the user preferences are generated based on analysis of messages associated with the user.
(“…the depiction of the mood or behavior trait can be in reaction to a detected mood or behavior of the user…”, paragraph 28.
“…The determination of the user persona can be based on the analyzing of the user input. At 308, a determination can be made, by the first communication device, as to a user deficiency. The determination of the user deficiency can be based on the analyzing of the user input. At 310, the first communication device can receive a promotional offer from a marketing system. In one embodiment, the promotional offer can be based on a benefit being provided by the marketing system in exchange for presentation of marketing information by the first digital assistant. The first communication device can provide an acceptance of the promotional offer to the marketing system. …”, paragraph 29 and Fig. 3 and associated disclosure.
“0030] In one embodiment, the analyzing of the user input includes an analysis of speech patterns and/or vocabulary, such as of audio content and/or text that is provided as user input by the user to the first communication device during the first communication exchange. The analysis can be performed utilizing various techniques, including speech recognition, natural language synthesis, and so forth. Various libraries, including local and/or remote libraries can be accessed to facilitate the analysis of the user input….”, paragraph 30).
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, Baldwin discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured [to insert a question sentence into a dialogue session] to obtain feedback from the user.
(“…adjusting of the first digital assistant persona causes the first digital assistant to present the marketing information in a response during the first communication exchange, where the adjusting of the first digital assistant persona causes the first digital assistant to present deficiency information during the first communication exchange that is selected by the first digital assistant based on the user deficiency, and where the deficiency information is associated with a subject matter that is determined by the processor to be unknown to the user. Function 464 can also include determining a user persona of the user based on the analyzing of the user input, where the adjusting of the first digital assistant persona is based on the user persona, and where the analyzing of the user input includes an analysis of speech patterns and vocabulary…”, paragraph 46.
“…response during the communication exchange. The analyzing of the user input can include an analysis of speech patterns and vocabulary. …”, paragraph 49 and claim 19).
Baldwin does not specifically disclose but Jung discloses
to insert a question sentence into a dialogue session
(“[0083] Another example of a speech test function may be a measure of a user's comprehension of spoken language, including whether a user 106 can understand simple questions and commands, or grammatical structure. For example, a user 106 could be tested by a speech or voice test module 156 and/or user-health test function unit 140 asking the question "Mike was shot by John. Is John dead?" An inappropriate response may indicate a speech center defect. Alternatively a user-health test function unit 140 and/or speech or voice test module 156 may require a user to say a slogan, jingle, code, or phrase and repeat it several times….”, paragraph 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jung’s teaching with the teaching of Baldwin. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to insert a question in a speech in order to “comprehension of spoken language” (Jung paragraph 83).
As to claims 4 and 12, Baldwin discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the vocalized speech data based on [the second piece ] of text information.
(“A method that incorporates the subject disclosure may include, for example, providing a first digital assistant to engage in a first communication exchange with a user of the first communication device where the first digital assistant has a first digital assistant persona that controls information provided by the first digital assistant during communication exchanges [Examiner interprets as the second or first piece of information]], analyzing user input during the first communication exchange, and adjusting the first digital assistant persona based on one or more of the user persona, user deficiency, or promotional offers….”, abstract.
…The digital assistants can provide various information to a user based on questions posed by the user, such as the name of a restaurant, sporting event scores, and so forth”, paragraph 2.
“..the advertising or marketing information is provided by the digital assistant 150 as a response to a question being posed by the user 130”, paragraph 21.
“…the marketing information can be presented in the response as an answer to a question posed by the user during the first communication exchange”, paragraph 34).
Claims 5-8, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20150134456 ( BALDWIN) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20120164613 (Jung) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20040117189 (Bennett).
As to claims 5, 13 and 20, Baldwin discloses
wherein when the interpretation of the first piece of text information includes an [identification of question sentence data], the second piece of text information includes answer data corresponding to the question sentence data.
(“…the marketing information can be presented in the response as an answer to a question posed by the user during the first communication exchange”, paragraph 34).
Baldwin does not disclose but Bennett discloses
identification of question sentence data,
(“An intelligent query system for processing voiced-based queries is disclosed…”, abstract.
“[0096] This invention addresses the above issues. It provides the user or student with answers to questions that are normally channeled to a live teacher or mentor. This invention provides a single-best answer to questions asked by the student. The student asks the question in his or her own voice in the language of choice. The speech is recognized and the answer to the question is found using a number of technologies including distributed speech recognition, full-text search database processing, natural language processing and text-to-speech technologies. The answer is presented to the user…”, paragraph 96.
“…Based on the query, database processor 186 then locates and retrieves an appropriate answer using a customized SQL query from database 188. A Natural Language Engine 190 facilitates structuring the query to database 188. After a matching answer to the user's question is found, the former is transmitted in text form across data link 160B,..”, paragraph 129.
“[0270] Once the Best Answer ID is received at 716 FIG. 4C, from the NLE 14 (FIG. 5), the code corresponding 716C receives it passes it to code in 716B where the path of the Answer file is determined using the record number”. …paragraph 270 and Figs. 4C and 5.
“[0312] The ID corresponding to the best answer corresponding to the selected final result record question is then generated by routine 815 which then returns it to DB Process shown in FIG. 4C. As seen there, a Best Answer ID I is received by routine 716A, and used by a routine 716B to retrieve an answer file path. Routine 716C then opens and reads the answer file, and communicates the substance of the same to routine 716D…”, paragraph 312.).
Baldwin does not disclose identification of question sentence data, but from Bennett teaching from system implementation in databases “ the full-text database with question-answer pairs”, paragraph 381 and “The ID corresponding to the best answer corresponding to the selected final result record question is then generated..”, paragraph 312. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bennett’s teaching of answer id and question id into a database “question-answer pairs” approach and the results would have been predictable.
As to claims 6 and 14, Baldwin discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine [whether content of a dialogue session matches] a question sentence stored in a storage.
(“…the marketing information can be presented in the response as an answer to a question posed by the user during the first communication exchange”, paragraph 34).
Baldwin does not disclose but Bennett discloses
whether content of a dialogue session matches
Bennett’s system comprises “…After all stored questions of the array are compared with the user's question, the stored question that yields the maximum match with the user's question is selected as the best possible stored question that matches the user's question….”, paragraph 92.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bennett’s teaching with the teaching of Baldwin. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to match an answer to a question in order to implement a database “question-answer pairs” approach(see Bennett paragraph 381) .
As to claims 7 and 15, Baldwin does not disclose but Bennett discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit answer sentence data stored in the storage and corresponding to the question sentence for generating the vocalized speech data
(“…After all stored questions of the array are compared with the user's question, the stored question that yields the maximum match with the user's question is selected as the best possible stored question that matches the user's question….”, paragraph 92.
“[0129] Initially speech input is provided in the form of a question or query articulated by the speaker at the client's machine or personal accessory as a speech utterance. This speech utterance is captured and partially processed by NLQS client-side software 155 resident in the client's machine. To facilitate and enhance the human-like aspects of the interaction, the question is presented in the presence of an animated character 157 visible to the user who assists the user as a personal information retriever/agent. The agent can also interact with the user using both visible text output on a monitor/display (not shown) and/or in audible form using a text to speech engine 159. The output of the partial processing done by SRE 155 is a set of speech vectors that are transmitted over communication channel 160 that links the user's machine or personal accessory to a server or servers via the INTERNET or a wireless gateway that is linked to the INTERNET as explained above. At server 180, the partially processed speech signal data is handled by a server-side SRE 182, which then outputs recognized speech text corresponding to the user's question. Based on this user question related text, a text-to-query converter 184 formulates a suitable query that is used as input to a database processor 186. Based on the query, database processor 186 then locates and retrieves an appropriate answer using a customized SQL query from database 188. A Natural Language Engine 190 facilitates structuring the query to database 188. After a matching answer to the user's question is found, the former is transmitted in text form across data link 160B, where it is converted into speech by text to speech engine 159, and thus expressed as oral feedback by animated character agent 157”, paragraph 129 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bennett’s teaching with the teaching of Baldwin. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to generate vocalized speech data in order to offer “An intelligent query system for processing voiced-based queries” (see Bennett abstract).
As to claims 8 and 16, Baldwin does not disclose but Jung discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to identify a command in the first piece of text information using the language analysis.
(“[0083] Another example of a speech test function may be a measure of a user's comprehension of spoken language, including whether a user 106 can understand simple questions and commands, or grammatical structure. For example, a user 106 could be tested by a speech or voice test module 156 and/or user-health test function unit 140 asking the question "Mike was shot by John. Is John dead?" An inappropriate response may indicate a speech center defect. Alternatively a user-health test function unit 140 and/or speech or voice test module 156 may require a user to say a slogan, jingle, code, or phrase and repeat it several times….”, paragraph 83).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Jung’s teaching with the teaching of Baldwin. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to identify commands in order to offer “comprehension of spoken language” (Jung paragraph 83).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Building Autonomous Sensitive Artificial Listeners”. IEEE. 2012.
“This paper describes a substantial effort to build a real-time interactive multimodal dialogue system with a focus on emotional and nonverbal interaction capabilities. The work is motivated by the aim to provide technology with competences in perceiving and producing the emotional and nonverbal behaviors required to sustain a conversational dialogue. We present the Sensitive Artificial Listener (SAL) scenario as a setting which seems particularly suited for the study of emotional and nonverbal behavior since it requires only very limited verbal understanding on the part of the machine. This scenario allows us to concentrate on nonverbal capabilities without having to address at the same time the challenges of spoken language understanding, task modeling, etc. We first report on three prototype versions of the SAL scenario in which the behavior of the Sensitive Artificial Listener characters was determined by a human operator. These prototypes served the purpose of verifying the effectiveness of the SAL scenario and allowed us to collect data required for building system components for analyzing and synthesizing the respective behaviors. We then describe the fully autonomous integrated real-time system we created, which combines incremental analysis of user behavior, dialogue management, and synthesis of speaker and listener behavior of a SAL character displayed as a virtual agent. We discuss principles that should underlie the evaluation of SAL-type systems. Since the system is designed for modularity and reuse and since it is publicly available, the SAL system has potential as a joint research tool in the affective computing research community.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights