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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8 – 11 and 18- 20 are currently amended.
Claims 6 – 7 and 16 - 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 15 and 18 - 20 are pending
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 7 – 10 and 17 -19 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Woods, Dominos and Lago. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 15 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 5, 8-10 are drawn to a method.
Claims 11 – 15, 18, 19 are drawn to an apparatus.
Claims 20 are drawn to a CRM.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 11 -15 and 18 - 19 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
11. (Currently Amended) An apparatus for enabling a digital character depicted at a display device to interact with a first person located in a physical environment, the apparatus comprising:
a network communication unit configured to transmit and receive data; and
one or more controllers configured to:
provide for an interaction between the digital character and the first person by controlling a performance of the digital character depicted at the display device by an artificial intelligence (AI) game-engine; and
during the interaction between the digital character and the first person:
receive a request from the first person;
cause a change to a digital object in a digital environment in response to the interaction between the digital character and the first person; and
cause a change in the physical environment in which the first person is located in response to an action by the digital character depicted at the display device, wherein the change in the physical environment is associated with a physical object in the physical environment corresponding to the digital object in the digital environment, and wherein the digital object is different from the physical object wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to cause the change in the physical environment by servicing the request by providing the physical object to be delivered for retrieval by the first person,
wherein the physical object comprises an item that is pre-made, and
wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to, prior to providing the physical object comprising the item that is pre-made, control the display device to display
repetitions of at least one animation loop or animation sequence depicting a preparation of the item.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and the managing of interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are the causing of an interaction between a person and an avatar wherein a user makes a request and the request is serviced by causing a change in the user’s physical environment wherein the item is delivered to the person and an animation is of the item being prepared is presented to the user.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): game engine, display device communication units and controllers.
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed computer game engine, display devices, communication units and controllers. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s own specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0103] In selected embodiments, features and aspects described herein may be implemented within a computing environment 700, as shown in FIG. 7, which may include one or more computer servers 701. The server 701 may be operatively coupled to one or more data stores 702 (e.g., databases, indexes, files, or other data structures). The server 701 may connect to a data communication network 703 including a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet), a telephone network, a satellite or wireless communication network, or some combination of these or similar networks.
[0104] One or more client devices 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 may be in communication with the server 701, and a corresponding data store 702 via the data communication network 703. Such client devices 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 may include, for example, one or more laptop computers 707, desktop computers 704, smartphones and mobile phones 705, tablet computers 706, televisions 708, motion capture sensor(s) 709, camera(s) 710, or combinations thereof. In operation, such client devices 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 may send and receive data or instructions to or from the server 701 in response to user input received from user input devices or other input. In response, the server 701 may serve data from the data store 702, alter data within the data store 702, add data to the data store 702, or the like, or combinations thereof.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Hasegawa et al (US 2021/0192183) establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0087] In addition, the arrangement of a plurality of edge servers 200 (an edge server 200 is arranged for each base, for example) makes it possible to disperse the load of verification from among the respective edge servers 200, and thus, a further reduction in the load can be achieved. Moreover, an analysis process in a plurality of edge servers 200 makes it possible for a small-scale equipment process to carry out simple machine learning. As a result, easy and simple machine learning becomes possible, which substitutes for a conventional large-scale AI engine.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 – 4, 8 – 14 and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al (US 2018/0239144) in view of “Let’s play Dominos Pizza Tracker – A slice of Life” (YouTube Video) (hereinafter “Dominos”)
As per claim 1, Woods discloses:
providing for an interaction between the digital character and the first person by controlling a performance of the digital character depicted at the display device by an artificial intelligence (AI) game-engine; and (Woods discloses the providing of an interaction between a person and an avatar that is controlled by artificial intelligence) (Woods 0287, 0288, Fig 139F)
during the interaction between the digital character and the first person: (Woods 0287, 0288, Fig 139F)
receiving a request from the first person; (Woods discloses a user interacting with an avatar to find a place to eat (i.e. person request) (Woods 0287)
causing a change to a digital object in a digital environment in response to the interaction between the digital character and the first person; and (Wood discloses the avatar presenting the user with several options that are presented on a map (I.e. digital object) (Woods 0287)
causing a change in the physical environment in which the first person is located in response to an action by the digital character depicted at the display device, wherein the change in the physical environment is associated with a physical object in the physical environment corresponding to the digital object in the digital environment, and wherein the digital object is different from the physical object,( Woods discloses “ if the user does not want to go out for food, the avatar may be configured to order food to be delivered from the desired vendor, electronically pay for it, and have it presented at the user's front door.” Thus as can be seen the user can choose a desired vendor (i.e. digital object) and have food delivered (i.e. physical object) that corresponds to the vendor) (Woods 0287)
wherein causing the change in the physical environment comprises servicing the request by providing the physical object to be delivered for retrieval by the first person, (Woods discloses the food can be delivered to the user (i.e. change in users physical environment) (Woods 0287)
wherein the physical object comprises an item that is pre-made, and (Wood discloses the delivery of pre-made food) (Woods 0287)
Woods fails to disclose specifically:
wherein the method further comprises:
prior to providing the physical object comprising the item that is pre-made, controlling the display device to display repetitions of at least one animation loop or animation sequence depicting a preparation of the item.
However in a similar field of endeavor wherein food is ordered and delivered to a person for retrieval, Dominos teaches the use of a display an animation or loop of repetitions of a pizza being made by an avatar (Dominos 0:12 – 2:50)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Woods in Woods in view of Dominos to utilize a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by means of displaying an animation loop comprising the item being prepared prior to delivery. This would be beneficial as it would enable a user to be informed how far along in the preparation process their item is and when they can expect it to be delivered.
As per claim 2, determining a presence of the first person in the physical environment, wherein providing for the interaction between the digital character and the first person is performed in response to determining the presence of the first person. (Woods discloses an interaction that is based upon the determination of presence of the first person) (Woods
As per claim 3, wherein the determination of the presence of the first person is performed based on data received from at least a camera or a microphone located in the physical environment. (Woods discloses at least one camera to determine a person’s presence in particular locations) (Woods 0173, 0205, 0215)
As per claim 4, wherein causing the change in the physical environment comprises causing a second physical object different from the display device to be moved or displaced within the physical environment. (Woods discloses the user may order food items wherein the user is not limited to a single item of food to be delivered, thus a user may order food items for delivery that may comprise first and second physical objects) (Woods 0287)
As per claim 8, wherein: the physical object further comprises [[an]] a second item to be prepared at the physical environment after the request is received; and the method further comprises: prior to providing the physical object further comprising the second item, controlling the display device to display repetitions of at least a first animation loop or animation sequence depicting a preparation of the second item. (Combination of Woods in view of Dominos as applied to claim 1 and 4)
As per claim 9, receiving information indicating that the preparation of the second item at the physical environment is not yet complete, wherein controlling the display device to display the repetitions of the at least the first animation loop or animation sequence comprises controlling the display device to display at least a second animation loop or animation sequence in response to receiving the information. (Combination of Woods in view of Dominos as applied to claim 1 and 4, Examiner further notes that Dominos teaches the use of a food preparation timeline along with animation to keep the user informed of their food preparation process.
As per claim 10, receiving information indicating that the preparation of the second item at the physical environment is complete, wherein controlling the display device to display the repetitions of the at least the first animation loop or animation sequence comprises controlling the display device to display animation depicting the second item in a completed state. (Combination of Woods in view of Dominos as applied to claim 1 and 4, Dominos Delivery tracker timeline, Dominos 0:10 – 2:50)
Independent claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are made obvious by the combination of Woods and Dominos based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 12 – 14, 18 and 19 is/are made obvious by the combination of Woods and Dominos based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 2 – 4, 8 and 19, which are similar in claim scope.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al (US 2018/0239144) in view of “Let’s play Domino’s Pizza Tracker – A slice of Life” (YouTube Video) (hereinafter “Dominos”) in view of “Conversation-Based Complex Event Management in Smart-Spaces” by Lago et al.
As per claim 5, Woods fails to specifically disclose:
causing the change in the physical environment comprises controlling a light source located in the physical environment to be turned either on or off.
However, in a similar field of endeavor wherein a user interacts with a digital assistant, Lago discloses a user interacting with a digital assistant to thereby cause a change in the physical environment to turn on a light. (Lago page 11).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Woods in view of Lago to use a known technique to modify similar devices in the same way by using an interaction with a digital assistant to turn on a light. This would be beneficial as a user would not have to physically do it themselves and use automation instead, thus freeing them up timewise to engage in other activities.
Dependent claim(s) 15 is/are made obvious by the combination of Woods, Dominos and Lago based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 5, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715