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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Apr. 28, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 19 and 20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Apr. 28, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, under Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant assert the rejections should be withdrawn various limitations cannot be performed mentally. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because those limitations were not rejected as reciting a mental process of any other abstract idea.
Second, under Step 2A Prong 2, Applicant assert the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims recite an ordered combination of specific technical features and are not analogous to Affinity Labs. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the other additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions and the use of deepfake is claimed too broadly and generally to be more than a general link to a field of use. Please see below for the complete analysis of the additional elements.
Third, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claimed indicator provides an improvement to technology. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of using the indicator includes labeling the video data (e.g., using user input) and Examiner finds labelling the video data is only storing the data in an organized manner which is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Further, Examiner finds no evidence using an indicator prevents the need for complex image analysis techniques (i.e., storing data with labels based on user input does not reflect an improvement over for complex image analysis techniques).
Fourth, under Step 2B, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the additional elements are not well-understood, routine and conventional. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the additional elements were not rejected as well-understood, routine or conventional. The additional elements were rejected as no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use.
Fifth, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because there are no 102 or 103 rejections. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because 35 USC 102 and 103 considerations are not a part of the eligibility analysis.
Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained.
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, 3-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1 and 3-12 are directed to a process; and claims 13-15, 17, 19 and 20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized)1:
…storing content in a content repository, the content including a plurality of background images, a plurality of training videos, a plurality of images and a plurality of audio of voices of employees of an organization that have consented to use the plurality of images and the plurality of audio in the plurality of training videos, first metadata for each of the plurality of images of the employees that is indicative that the image is intended for personalization, and second metadata for each of the plurality of audio of voices of the employees that is indicative that the audio voice is intended for personalization;
connecting a client device to a training platform that provides a plurality of training modules to the employees of the organization, the client device associated with an employee from the employees of the organization;
determining that the employee associated with the client device is required to complete a training module from the plurality of training modules:
customizing the training module for the employee by:
automatically selecting a background image for the training module from the stored plurality of background images, wherein the selected background image is selected based on a type of the organization;
selecting a training video for the training module from the plurality of videos stored in the content repository, the selected training video including an indicator of a customizable portion of the selected training video that depicts a stock person element in the customizable portion:
identifying that the selected video includes the indicator of the customizable portion for the selected video;
determining another employee from the employees of the organization that is a coworker of the employee within the organization responsive to identifying the indicator;
verifying that the other employee has consented to a likeness of the other employee being used in one or more of the plurality of training modules;
selecting an image of a face of the other employee from the plurality of images stored in the content repository based on the image having the first metadata that is indicative that the selected image is intended for personalization and audio of a voice of the other employee from the plurality of audio stored in the content repository based on the audio having the second metadata that is indicative that the selected audio is intended for personalization responsive to the verification; and
generating a training video for the training module by: removing the stock person element from the customizable portion of the training video that corresponds to the identified indicator and replacing the stock person element with a non-authentic video likeness of the other employee, wherein the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee is a synthetically generated video of the other employee generated dynamically by applying one or more artificial intelligence techniques to the selected image of the face of the other employee and the selected audio of the voice of the other employee, the non-authentic video likeness depicting the other employee as talking within the generated training video; and
presenting, to the client device, a user interface (UI) of the training module, the UI comprising: a first portion of the UI that includes the generated training video that comprises the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee a second portion of the UI that includes the selected background image, and a third portion of the UI that includes a plurality of training elements comprising text related to a training that is provided by the training module
wherein the first portion of the UI and the third portion of the UI are depicted as being overlayed over the second portion of the UI.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. teaching, and following rules or instructions), because these limitations essentially encompass following rules for determining what information is to be provided while teaching. That is, these limitations include identifying training that needs to be completed, selecting formats and videos and people for completing the training, and presenting the training videos. Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity”. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements (emphasized):
…storing content in a content repository, the content including a plurality of background images, a plurality of training videos, a plurality of images and a plurality of audio of voices of employees of an organization that have consented to use the plurality of images and the plurality of audio in the plurality of training videos, first metadata for each of the plurality of images of the employees that is indicative that the image is intended for personalization, and second metadata for each of the plurality of audio of voices of the employees that is indicative that the audio voice is intended for personalization;
connecting a client device to a training platform that provides a plurality of training modules to the employees of the organization, the client device associated with an employee from the employees of the organization;
determining that the employee associated with the client device is required to complete a training module from the plurality of training modules:
customizing the training module for the employee by:
automatically selecting a background image for the training module from the stored plurality of background images, wherein the selected background image is selected based on a type of the organization;
selecting a training video for the training module from the plurality of videos stored in the content repository, the selected training video including an indicator of a customizable portion of the selected training video that depicts a stock person element in the customizable portion:
identifying that the selected video includes the indicator of the customizable portion for the selected video;
determining another employee from the employees of the organization that is a coworker of the employee within the organization responsive to identifying the indicator;
verifying that the other employee has consented to a likeness of the other employee being used in one or more of the plurality of training modules;
selecting an image of a face of the other employee from the plurality of images stored in the content repository based on the image having the first metadata that is indicative that the selected image is intended for personalization and audio of a voice of the other employee from the plurality of audio stored in the content repository based on the audio having the second metadata that is indicative that the selected audio is intended for personalization responsive to the verification; and
generating a training video for the training module by: removing the stock person element from the customizable portion of the training video that corresponds to the identified indicator and replacing the stock person element with a non-authentic video likeness of the other employee, wherein the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee is a synthetically generated video of the other employee generated dynamically by applying one or more artificial intelligence techniques to the selected image of the face of the other employee and the selected audio of the voice of the other employee, the non-authentic video likeness depicting the other employee as talking within the generated training video; and
presenting, to the client device, a user interface (UI) of the training module, the UI comprising: a first portion of the UI that includes the generated training video that comprises the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee a second portion of the UI that includes the selected background image, and a third portion of the UI that includes a plurality of training elements comprising text related to a training that is provided by the training module
wherein the first portion of the UI and the third portion of the UI are depicted as being overlayed over the second portion of the UI.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of storing content including the claimed metadata and connecting a client device, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of storing data (e.g. storing videos and sending and receiving data over a network), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of using an indicator of the customizable portion a video, selecting an image of a face of another employee based on the stored metadata, and generating a training video by replacing a stock person with a non-authentic video likeness by applying AI techniques, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (deepfake videos) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of the user interface with various portions and performing steps automatically, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Fourth, the additional elements of the first and third portions being overlaid on the second portion, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic process of video transmission, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing TLI Communications).
Fifth, claims 13 and 20 further recite a processor performing the various steps and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for performing the various steps, respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected for the following reasons.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 19 recites various details about what information is included in the custom organization content. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements all still only encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing various types data (i.e. receiving and storing the various claimed types of custom organization content), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of an admin user interface for receiving an image that is a piece of custom organization content. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements all still only encompass generic computer functions of receiving various types data via a generic UI (i.e. receiving the various claimed types of custom organization content), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 6 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because classifying content to generate and provide a training module essentially encompass following rules for determining what information is to be provided while teaching.
Claim 6 further recites the additional elements of training and deploying a machine learning model to perform the steps. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the machine learning is recited sufficiently generally and broadly such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a playback speed. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function (e.g. providing a fast-forward control for a video player).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of authorizing and authenticating. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer functions of access control (e.g. requiring logins, passwords, etc.).
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of connecting with a payroll provider, verifying permissions of the payroll provider, and receiving content from the payroll provider. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements only encompass generic computer functions of access control (e.g. requiring logins, passwords, etc.) and receiving data (i.e. receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of using machine learning. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the machine learning is claimed sufficiently broadly such that it encompasses a generic computer function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kokate, Shreeya, et al. "An Approach to Education: Improvements using Image Animation for Deepfakes." International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) 8.4 (2021): e5009-e5015 teaches a similar use of deepfake videos in educational content
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes the exact language of claims 1, 13, and 20 differs but does not find these differences significantly alter the eligibility analyses and accordingly analyzes the claims concurrently here for the sake of brevity.
Prosecution Insights