DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 3/10/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office 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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 words limit (152 words currently). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,14-15 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5,7,11-15 and 17 of the co-pending application 18/119,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the elements of the instant application claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11-12,14-15 and 18-19 are to be found in the claims 1-5,7,11-15 and 17 of the co-pending application 18/119,716.
Instant Application (18/119,737)
Co-Pending application (18/119,716)
1. A system comprising: a computing platform having a hardware processor and a system memory;
the system memory storing a software code, a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC), and a trained machine learning (ML) model; the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to:
elicit, using the AIIC, a reminiscence from a user;
predict, using the trained ML model and the reminiscence, at least one user memory feature of the reminiscence;
identify, using the memory data structure, one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature;
determine, using the at least one user memory feature, a mood modifier for a creative composition;
produce, based on the mood modifier and the corresponding one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC, the creative composition; and provide the creative composition to the AIIC.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of memory features stored by the memory data structure comprise at least one of human generated memory features or synthesized memory features for the AIIC.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: utilize a large language ML model to generate the poem or the lyrics.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: control the AIIC to perform the creative composition.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the AIIC comprises one of a digital character or a machine.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory data structure comprises one of an undirected cyclic graph or an acyclic graph.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the predicted at least one user memory feature comprises a plurality of predicted user memory features, and wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: represent the plurality of predicted user memory features as a knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure; and wherein identifying the one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature further uses the knowledge graph.
Claims 11-12,18,14-15 and 19
1. A system comprising: a computing platform having a hardware processor and a system memory;
the system memory storing a software code, a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC), and a trained machine learning (ML) model; the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to:
receive interaction data describing a communication by a user with the AIIC; predict, using the trained ML model and the interaction data, at least one user memory feature of the communication; identify, using the memory data structure, one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature;
determine, using the at least one user memory feature of the communication and the corresponding one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC, an interactive communication for execution by the AIIC in response to the communication by the user; and
output the interactive communication to the AIIC.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of memory features stored by the memory data structure comprise at least one of human generated memory features or synthesized memory features for the AIIC.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the interactive communication for execution by the AIIC in response to the communication by the user comprises evaluating at least one candidate interactive communication output by a large-language ML model accessible by the software code.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: control the AIIC to execute the interactive communication.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the AIIC comprises a virtual character, and wherein the interactive communication output to the AIIC comprises at least one of speech, a gesture, a facial expression, or a posture for execution by the virtual character.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory data structure comprises one of an undirected cyclic graph or an acyclic graph.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the predicted at least one user memory feature comprises a plurality of predicted user memory features, and wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: represent the plurality of predicted user memory features as a knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure; and wherein identifying the one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature further uses the knowledge graph.
Claims11-12,13,14-15, and 17
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 1 recites a system (i.e., a “machine”) which is statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations “identify, using the memory data structure, one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature; determine, using the at least one user memory feature, a mood modifier for a creative composition; produce, based on the mood modifier and the corresponding one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC, the creative composition” are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including using a pen and paper.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional elements “a computing platform having a hardware processor and a system memory; the system memory storing a software code, a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC), and a trained machine learning (ML) model” .The computing platform and trained machine learning model are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claim 1 recites additional elements: “elicit, using the AIIC, a reminiscence from a user; provide the creative composition to the AIIC ” are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “predict, using the trained ML model and the reminiscence, at least one user memory feature of the reminiscence” . This additional element amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 210605(f)
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “The computing platform and trained machine learning model” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. The elicit and provide steps are simply data gathering steps and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites additional element of “ wherein the plurality of memory features stored by the memory data structure comprise at least one of human generated memory features or synthesized memory features for the AIIC” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 2 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites additional element of “wherein the reminiscence comprises an utterance by the user, and wherein determining the mood modifier of the creative composition is based on a prosody of the utterance” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 3 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites additional element of “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: control the AIIC to perform the creative composition” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and therefore does not integrate into a practical application. This additional element is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 4 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites additional element of “wherein the AIIC comprises one of a digital character or a machine” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and therefore does not integrate into a practical application. This additional element is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 5 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites additional element of “wherein the creative composition comprises music or a choreography” which is simply data gathering and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The data gathering is are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 6 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 7 recites additional element of “wherein the creative composition comprises one of a poem or lyrics” which is simply data gathering and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The data gathering is are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 7 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 8 recites additional element of “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: utilize a large language ML model to generate the poem or the lyrics” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and therefore does not integrate into a practical application. This additional element is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 8 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional element of “wherein the memory data structure comprises one of an undirected cyclic graph or an acyclic graph” which amounts to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 9 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites additional element of “wherein the predicted at least one user memory feature comprises a plurality of predicted user memory features, and wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: represent the plurality of predicted user memory features as a knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure; and wherein identifying the one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature further uses the knowledge graph” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 10 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 11 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) which is statutory category.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations “identifying, by the software code executed by the hardware processor and using the memory data structure, one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature; determining, by the software code executed by the hardware processor and using the at least one user memory feature, a mood modifier for a creative composition; producing, by the software code executed by the hardware processor based on the mood modifier and the corresponding one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC, the creative composition” . Except for the “by the software code executed by the hardware processor “ language , there is nothing that can prevent the processes from being performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including using a pen and paper.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 11 recites additional elements “a computing platform having a hardware processor and a system memory storing a software code, a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC), and a trained machine learning (ML) model” .The computing platform including memory , processor and trained machine learning model are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer .
Claim 11 recites additional elements: “eliciting, by the software code executed by the hardware processor and using the AIIC, a reminiscence from a user; providing , by the software code executed by the hardware processor, the creative composition to the AIIC ” are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 recites additional elements of “predicting, by the software code executed by the hardware processor and using the trained ML model and the reminiscence, at least one user memory feature of the reminiscence” . This additional element amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 210605(f)
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “The computing platform and trained machine learning model” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. The elicit and provide steps are simply data gathering steps and are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 11 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 12 recites additional element of “wherein the plurality of memory features stored by the memory data structure comprise at least one of human generated memory features or synthesized memory features for the AIIC” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 2 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 12 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites additional element of “wherein the reminiscence comprises an utterance by the user, and wherein determining the mood modifier of the creative composition is based on a prosody of the utterance” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 13 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites additional element of “controlling the AIIC, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, to perform the creative composition” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and therefore does not integrate into a practical application. This additional element is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 14 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites additional element of “wherein the AIIC comprises one of a digital character or a machine” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and therefore does not integrate into a practical application. This additional element is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 15 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites additional element of “wherein the creative composition comprises music or a choreography” which is simply data gathering and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The data gathering is are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 16 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 17 recites additional element of “wherein the creative composition comprises one of a poem or lyrics” which is simply data gathering and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The data gathering is are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 17 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 18 recites additional element of “the method further comprising: utilizing, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, a large language ML model to generate the poem or the lyrics” which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and therefore does not integrate into a practical application. This additional element is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 18 therefore is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites additional element of “wherein the memory data structure comprises one of an undirected cyclic graph or an acyclic graph” which amounts to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and equivalent of adding the words “apply it” to the exception and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Claim 19 therefore is not patent eligible..
Claim 20 recites additional element of “wherein the predicted at least one user memory feature comprises a plurality of predicted user memory features, the method further comprising: representing, by the software code executed by the hardware processor, the plurality of predicted user memory features as a knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure; and wherein identifying the one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature further uses the knowledge graph” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 20 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-7,9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al.,(US Patent Application Publication 2020/0035209 A1, hereinafter “Luan”) and further in view of Mishra et al.(US Patent 10,713,289 B1, hereinafter “Mishra”)
As to claim 1, Luan teaches a system comprising: a computing platform having a hardware processor and a system memory; the system memory storing a software code, a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC), and a trained machine learning (ML) model (Luan Fig.1 and par [0015] teaches computing environment 100. Luan par [0035] teaches the lyrics generation model may be built based on neural network based model); the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to:
elicit, using the AIIC, a reminiscence from a user ( Luan par [0028] teaches input image 104);
predict, using the trained ML model and the reminiscence, at least one user memory feature of the reminiscence (Luan par [0029] teaches the creation intention analyzing module 210 may determine that the creation intention of the user is to create a song to celebrate the happiness of the family) ;
identify, using the memory data structure, one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature; (Luan par [0032] teaches the lyrics generating module 220 is configured to generate the lyrics of the song based on the creation intention 202 )
determine, using the at least one user memory feature, a mood modifier for a creative composition ( Luan par [0033] teaches in generating the lyrics, the lyric generating module may compare information indicated by the creation intention such as the theme, emotion and/or various key elements, with the tag information of the existing lyrics and select a piece of matched lyrics as the lyrics 204)
produce, based on the mood modifier and the corresponding one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC, the creative composition; and provide the creative composition to the AIIC ( Luan par [0033] teaches in generating the lyrics, the lyric generating module may compare information indicated by the creation intention such as the theme, emotion and/or various key elements, with the tag information of the existing lyrics and select a piece of matched lyrics as the lyrics 204)
Luan fails to expressly teach a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC).
However, Mishra teaches a memory data structure storing a plurality of memory features for an artificial intelligence interactive character (AIIC).( Mishra col 2, lines 34-40 teaches the knowledge base may include a knowledge graph which may comprise a directed acrylic graph (DAG) which graphs nodes representing entities (e.g., people , places, things ) connected by vertices or links where each link corresponds to a relationship)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the memory data structure of Mishra with the computing platform as taught by Luan to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to improve user’s experience.(Mishra col 3, lines 5-6)
As to claim 2, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of memory features stored by the memory data structure comprise at least one of human generated memory features or synthesized memory features for the AIIC.( Luan par [0033] teaches the existing lyrics may include lyrics included in various existing songs or texts such as written poetry that can be sung)
As to claim 3, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the reminiscence comprises an utterance by the user, and wherein determining the mood modifier of the creative composition is based on a prosody of the utterance.(Luan par [0030] teaches the spectrum properties of the speech in the audio and/or video may be analyzed to determine emotions of characters expressed by the audio and/or video)
As to claim 4, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: control the AIIC to perform the creative composition. ( Luan par [0036] teaches the lyrics generating module 200 may directly provide the lyrics to the template generating module 230 or use the lyrics as the output 106 of the module 122 )
As to claim 5, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 4, wherein the AIIC comprises one of a digital character or a machine.(Luan par [0002] teaches a machine to automatically generate a song )
As to claim 6, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the creative composition comprises music or a choreography. ( Luan par [0002] teaches lyrics of the song are generated based on the creation intention)
As to claim 7, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the creative composition comprises one of a poem or lyrics.( Luan par [0002] teaches lyrics of the song are generated based on the creation intention)
As to claim 9, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the memory data structure comprises one of an undirected cyclic graph or an acyclic graph. (Mishra col 2, lines 34-40 teaches the knowledge base may include a knowledge graph which may comprise a directed acrylic graph (DAG) which graphs nodes representing entities (e.g., people , places, things ) connected by vertices or links where each link corresponds to a relationship)
As to claim 10, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 1, wherein the predicted at least one user memory feature comprises a plurality of predicted user memory features (Luan par [0024] teaches the creation intention of the user with respect to song refers to one or more features in the input 104 of the user that are expected to be expressed by the song to be generated, including the theme, feeling, ton, style) ,
Luan fails to expressly teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: represent the plurality of predicted user memory features as a knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure ; and wherein identifying the one or more of the plurality of memory features for the AIIC as corresponding to the at least one user memory feature further uses the knowledge graph.
However, Mishra teaches a knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure (Mishra col 2, lines 34-40 teaches the knowledge base may include a knowledge graph which may comprise a directed acrylic graph (DAG) which graphs nodes representing entities (e.g., people , places, things ) connected by vertices or links where each link corresponds to a relationship)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the knowledge graph having a same data structure as the memory data structure of Mishra to represent the plurality of predicted user memory features as taught by Luan to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to improve user’s experience.(Mishra col 3, lines 5-6)
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 merely recite a method performed by the system of claims 1-7 and 9-10 respectively. Accordingly, Luan and Mishra teach every limitation of claims 11-17 and 19-20 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 respectively.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan and Mishra and further in view of Leary et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2024/0095463 A1, hereinafter “Leary”)
As to claim 8, Luan and Mishra teach the system of claim 7 but fail to teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: utilize a large language ML model to generate the poem or the lyrics.
However, Leary teaches a large language model.(Leary par [0021] teaches using a large language model for a variety of different natural language processing related inferencing tasks)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to utilize the large language model of Leary to generate the lyrics as taught by Luan and Mishra to achieve the claimed invention . One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide the ability to use a single large language model for a variety of different natural language processing tasks without a need to retrain the model or use of multiple different, customized models.(Leary par [0021])
As to claim 18, see the above rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147