Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that the Office improperly dissects the claims where the Liu discloses psychological parameter values but then alleges Albert discloses “wherein the psychological parameter values characterize one or more of feeling, emotion, or perception”. That Liu fails to disclose a psychological profile and that there are not objective reasonings for making this rejection based on obviousness.
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s argument and respectfully disagrees. In the Office Action, Liu discloses ([0093] user profiles can be established by estimating the interest level of a user with respect to each of the concept/interest covered by the universal interest vector). Examiner interprets an interest level of a user as a psychological parameter value describing a user’s psychological disposition towards any given concept. Applicant’s specification defines a psychological profile in paragraph 20 “psychological profiles for users may include the stated information provided the user. For example, the stated information may include answers provided by the users to questions presented to the users, self-descriptions, characteristics, liked content, disliked content, content previously interacted with (e.g., watched, played, listened to, completed, visited), and/or other stated information”. Hence it is proper to use Liu to disclose psychological parameter values in a psychological profile that describes which content a user may like or dislike. Albert is then used to further explicitly teach that this psychological disposition may be a user’s feelings, emotions, or perception (Albert [0062]). As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Liu by the system of Soni to profile new users based on their interaction with an online platform. The reasoning being to profile users would help adapt digital environments for users based on how the users interact with content presented via the digital environments. To reiterate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate a user profile based on entities a given user interacted with (Soni [0005]). Given the above, the examiner maintains that this claim language was not improperly isolated as Liu, Soni, and Albert all discloses psychological parameter values and that Liu does disclose psychological parameter values for a user.
35 U.S.C 101
Regarding claims 1-20, applicant first argues that the Office Action fails to provide a succinct identification of an individual abstract idea to which the claims are allegedly directed. Where the rejection fails to clearly show under Step 2A, Prong one because the Office Action Fails to show the claims recite an abstract idea.
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s argument and respectfully disagrees. On page 4-5, the Office Action states that the listed limitations on page 4 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Where the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Office Action recites that the limitations “convert the unprofiled users to the profiled users, wherein converting the individual unprofiled users includes:
inferring the psychological parameter values of the individual unprofiled user for one or more of the psychological parameters by:
analyzing the interaction information for the individual profiled users and the interaction information for the individual unprofiled users to determine the individual pieces of contents that the profiled users and the unprofiled users interacted with and which have identical or similar ones of the taxonomical classifications, and
determining, based on determined ones of the individual pieces of content and the psychological parameter values included in the content-specific correlations, the psychological parameter values for the one or more psychological parameters of the individual unprofiled users; and
identify prospective pieces of content based on the psychological profiles of the profiled users including the newly profiled users” correlate to the abstract idea of a mental process. The Office Action is succinct and consistent with stating that these limitations are directed to a mental process.
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. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the following limitations directed to an abstract idea “obtain interaction information, from online platforms that provide the digital environments, for unprofiled users, wherein the interaction information for individual unprofiled users specifies i) instances of interactions between the individual unprofiled users and one or more of the individual pieces of content via the digital environments and ii) timing information for the instances; convert the unprofiled users to profiled users, wherein converting a first unprofiled user to a first profiled user includes: inferring, based on the interaction information for the first unprofiled user and the content-specific correlations, psychological parameter values of the first unprofiled user for one or more of the psychological parameters” which is a mental process that may be performed in the human mind including observing users actions and evaluating those observations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of “electronic storage that stores i) taxonomical classifications of individual pieces of content, wherein individual taxonomical classifications include content classes and content subclasses to the content classes for the individual pieces of content, wherein the taxonomical classifications conform to a taxonomy that defines a hierarchical system of the content classes and the content subclasses, wherein the individual pieces of content are designated by the corresponding taxonomical classifications as being included in specified ones of the content classes and the content subclasses, ii) psychological profiles for profiled users of digital environments, wherein the psychological profiles include psychological parameter values for psychological parameters that characterize psychology of individual profiled users, and iii) content-specific correlations between the psychological parameter values of one or more of the psychological parameters included in the psychological profiles for the profiled users and the individual pieces of content; and storing the inferred one or more psychological parameter values to a first psychological profile that characterizes the psychology of the first profiled user.” amount to storing and retrieving information in memory that are identified as well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S Pub # 20140280350) in view of Soni (U.S Pub # 20180285774).
With regards to claim 1, Liu discloses a system configured to identify psychological profiles of users by utilizing correlations between content classifications and content interaction, the system comprising:
electronic storage that stores i) taxonomical classifications of individual pieces of content, wherein individual taxonomical classifications include content classes and content subclasses to the content classes for the individual pieces of content, wherein the taxonomical classifications conform to a taxonomy that defines a hierarchical system of the content classes and the content subclasses, wherein the individual pieces of content are designated by the corresponding taxonomical classifications as being included in specified ones of the content classes and the content subclasses (Fig. 15 [0093] content taxonomy may be organized as a hierarchical structure), ii) psychological profiles for profiled users of digital environments, wherein the psychological profiles include psychological parameter values for psychological parameters that characterize psychology of individual profiled users ([0097] user profiles can be established by estimating the interest level of a user with respect to each of the concept/interest covered by the universal interest vector), and iii) content-specific correlations between the psychological parameter values of one or more of the psychological parameters included in the psychological profiles for the profiled users and the individual pieces of content ([0043] user’s interest can be mapped to an interest space).
Liu does not disclose however Soni discloses:
one or more processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
obtain interaction information, from online platforms that provide the digital environments, for unprofiled users, wherein the interaction information for individual unprofiled users specifies i) instances of interactions between the individual unprofiled users and one or more of the individual pieces of content via the digital environments ([0065] entity interactions by a new user with provided content are tracked)and ii) timing information for the instances ([0052] detecting time spent reading or viewing);
convert the unprofiled users to profiled users, wherein converting a first unprofiled user to a first profiled user includes:
inferring, based on the interaction information for the first unprofiled user and the content-specific correlations, psychological parameter values of the first unprofiled user for one or more of the psychological parameters ([0068] when sufficient entity interactions have been obtained, a user profile for the new user can be determined); and
storing the inferred one or more psychological parameter values to a first psychological profile that characterizes the psychology of the first profiled user ([0073] user profile data including vector representations of users are stored).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Liu by the system of Soni to profile new users based on their interaction with an online platform.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate a user profile based on entities a given user interacted with (Soni [0005]).
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 2, Liu further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors is further configured by machine-readable instructions to: identify prospective pieces of content for the first profiled user based on the inferred psychological parameter values, and effectuate presentation of the prospective pieces of content to the first profiled user within the digital environments ([0051] content recommendation).
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 3, Liu further discloses:
wherein the presentation of the prospective pieces of content includes presenting a list of the prospective pieces of content within the digital environments ([0069] Content ranking unit 210 generates the content stream to be recommended to user 105 based on content).
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 4, Liu further discloses:
wherein the individual pieces of content are characterized by at least a mode of user interaction ([0054] Probing interests/content may also be determined based on other considerations such as locale, time, or device type), an interactivity type ([0060]), a theme ([0090] topics), and one or more subjects ([0047] Content in the content pool can be rated in terms of the subject).
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 5, Liu further discloses:
wherein the individual pieces of content includes at least a portion of a game, a television show, a movie, a brand, an interest, an activity, a game mechanic, a brand, an art style, an application, an application feature, a theme, and/or a subscription ([0093] entertainment may include movies).
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 7, Liu further discloses:
wherein the psychological profiles for profiled users are associated with and/or generated in relation with particular online games, online platforms, and/or online applications ([0094] online applications).
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 8, Liu further discloses:
wherein the interaction information includes timing information, expense information, and/or movement information related to the interactions with the individual pieces of content ([0060] user dwell time or scroll over of particular content).
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 9, Liu does not disclose however Soni discloses:
wherein the interaction information includes whether the unprofiled users have affinities for the individual pieces of content or aversions to the individual pieces of content ([0066] user preferences).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Liu by the system of Soni to profile new users based on their interaction with an online platform.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate a user profile based on entities a given user interacted with (Soni [0005]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 10, Liu further discloses:
wherein the psychological parameter values characterize one or more feeling, emotion, perception, thought, and behavior of profiled users ([0090] user interactions).
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S Pub # 20140280350) in view of Soni (U.S Pub # 20180285774) and in further view of Carter (U.S Pub # 20140172893).
With regards to claim 6, Liu does not disclose however Carter discloses:
wherein the psychological profiles for profiled users includes answers of the users to questions presented to the profiled users ([0026] personality traits that are explicitly stated and/or inferred from self-generated data such as user responses to survey questions).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Liu and Soni by the system of Carter to psychologically profile users by asking them questions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to generate a user profile based on entities a given user interacted with (Soni [0005]).
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166