DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 23 September 2024, claims 1-18 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-18 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 10 recite a method comprising:
building a persona model for an individual, which persona model includes, at least in part, a personality traits component;
accessing a record of experiential visual content to which the individual was previously exposed during a corresponding given episode;
formulating metadata regarding a record of experiential visual content;
within five minutes of a corresponding given episode concluding, re-exposing the individual to a selected portion of visual content;
receiving feedback from the individual regarding at least one subject of the selected portion of the visual content while re-exposing the individual to the selected portion of the visual content;
determining whether to terminate receiving the feedback from the individual as a function, at least in part, of the persona model; and
assessing accuracy of the feedback as a function of the metadata to metricize the accuracy of the feedback to provide metricized accuracy of the feedback.
The limitations of building a persona model, accessing a record of content, formulating metadata, re-exposing the individual to content, receiving feedback, determining whether to terminate receiving the feedback, and assessing accuracy of the feedback, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “control circuit,” performing the claimed steps, wherein the building and formulating are performed automatically, and re-exposing is performed via an “end user interface”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “control circuit” and “user interface” language, “building”, “accessing”, “formulating”, “re-exposing”, “receiving”, “determining”, and “assessing” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually building a persona model, accessing record, formulating metadata, re-exposing the individual, receiving feedback, determining whether to terminate, and assessing accuracy, for example as a series of purely mental steps or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, as noted above the claims recite using a control circuit and generic user interface to perform the claimed steps. The control circuit and interface in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic control circuit performing generic computer functions of receiving and analyzing information, and a user interface exchanging data with a user) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims further recite the limitations of formulating the metadata as a function of artificial intelligence. This limitation only serves to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (artificial intelligence). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using a control circuit and user interface to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence only serves to generally link the exception to the area of artificial intelligence. See MPEP 2106.05(g), (h). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. Receiving feedback via an artificial intelligence dialog in claims 3 and 12 only serves to generally link the exception to the area of artificial intelligence. Performing the invention utilizing audio content as in claims 4-6 and 13-15 does not direct the claims to patentable subject matter for the reasons outlined in claims 1 and 10 with respect to visual content. Claims 2, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 only recite further abstract aspects of the data analysis which being performed by the generic control circuit, and therefore are also drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments and corresponding amendments with respect to the section 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The section 103 rejection of claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed steps of building a persona model and formulating metadata cannot practically be performed before the subsequent step of re-exposing the individual. This argument is not persuasive. First, this argument is merely an assertion, and Applicant has not shown evidence that these intermediate steps could not be performed by a person within this timeframe. Second, in this case the test for whether a claim is an abstract idea is not whether certain steps of the claim can be performed by a person exactly as claimed. Instead, the test is whether the steps are analogous to steps that could be performed by a person. The involvement of a computer, and in this case generic artificial intelligence, may lead to efficiencies in the performance of the steps of the abstract idea. However, these limitations are addressed in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. In this case, these additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to at perhaps improve the abstract idea itself, not improve the computer or any other technological area.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights