Ex Parte Jacob et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

13829925 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/829,925 03/14/2013
22918 7590 09/26/2018
PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oren M. Jacob
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
077366-8005.USOl 3082
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OREN M. JACOB, MARTIN REDDY, LUCAS R.A. IVES,
and ROBERT G. PODESTA
Appeal2018---003044
Application 13/829,925
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-31 and 33-35. Br. 5. Claim 32
stands as allowed. Id.; Final Act. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 Appellants state the real party at interest is Pullstring, Inc., App Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed October 18, 2016, "Br."), the Examiner's
Answer (mailed January 26, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 14,
2016, "Final Act)," and the Specification (filed March 14, 2013, "Spec.") for
Appeal2018---003044
Application 13/829,925
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to conversation-based human-computer interaction.
See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 15, 18, 26, and 32-34 are independent. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method for engaging a user in conversation with a
synthetic character, the method comprising:
generating a virtual environment that includes the synthetic
character;
causing the virtual environment to be presented on a display of
a user device associated with the user;
receiving an audio input from the user device that includes one
or more words spoken by the user to the synthetic character;
transmitting the audio input to a dedicated speech processing
server across a first network;
acquiring a textual representation of the one or more words
from the dedicated speech processing server;
determining a responsive audio output based on the textual
representation;
transmitting the responsive audio output to the user device
across a second network; and
causing the synthetic character to utter the responsive audio
output to the user.
their respective details.
2
Appeal2018---003044
Application 13/829,925
Kawaguchi, et al.,
Loyall, et al.,
References and Rejections
us 5,930,752 July 27, 1999
US 2011/0016004 Al Jan. 20, 2011
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1-35 stand provisionally rejected on the judicial ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over Claims 1-36 of co-pending
Application No. 13/558206. Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 1-31 and 33-35 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
I03(a) as being unpatentable over Loyall and Kawaguchi. Final Act.
5-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-31 and 33-35 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in Appellants' Brief, we agree with
the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable. We adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We
consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal
3
Appeal2018---003044
Application 13/829,925
Brief, pages 19-23.
CLAIMS 1-35: NONSTATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING
Claims 1-35 stand rejected over Claims 1-36 of co-pending
Application No. 13/558,206. Final Act. 4. Application No. 13/558,206
remains pending. Appellants do not present arguments in this regard. We,
therefore, proforma affirm the rejection. See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d
1884 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
CLAIMS 1-31 AND33-35: 0BVIOUSNESSOVERLOYALLANDKAWAGUCHI
Appellants argue all independent claims as a group in view of the
limitations of Claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 22. Therefore, we decide the
appeal of the § 103 rejection on the basis of illustrative Claim 1, and refer to
the rejected claims collectively herein as "the claims." See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds Loyall teaches the exchange and remote access of
user and avatar information, but Loyall does not explicitly teach the user
device remotely communicating with a speech recognition server. Final Act.
6. The Examiner finds Kawaguchi supplements Loyall by teaching a
client-server architecture wherein the client-terminals have avatar
representations and use the server's speech recognition services. Id.
Appellants admit Loyal teaches an avatar may engage a user in
conversation, but contends Loyall teaches an approach and technique that
differs from the claims. Br. 20. As characterized by Appellants, Loyall does
4
Appeal2018---003044
Application 13/829,925
not teach "receiving an audio input from the user device," as recited in
independent Claim 1. Br. 21.
The Examiner finds Loyall teaches microphone input and the use of a
network to exchange user and avatar information to and from the user
device. Ans. 11.
Appellants do not file a Reply Brief and have not persuaded us the
Examiner errs.
Independent Claim 15
Appellants contend Loyall does not teach "logging statistics for events
that occur during [a] user interaction" with an interactive virtual scene, as
recited in independent Claim 15. Br. 22. Appellants contend Kawaguchi
fails to cure Loyall. Id.
The Examiner finds the claimed "logging statistics" are directed
towards "learning of user interaction," as disclosed in Appellants'
specification. Ans. 13 (citing Spec., ,r 54). The Examiner finds Loyall
broadly, but reasonably, teaches this definition by disclosing tracking of
dialog interactions and active updating of the active behavior tree (ABT)
during "machine learning." Id.
Appellants do not file a Reply Brief and have not persuaded us the
Examiner errs.
DECISION
5
Appeal2018---003044
Application 13/829,925
The rejection of Claims 1-31 and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6