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 .
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. The claim(s) recite(s) elements which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained below.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites an augmented or virtual reality (AR/VR) system providing an AR/VR environment in which multiple users interact, the system comprising:
A server supporting the AR/VR environment
a Chat Discord Amelioration Model (CDM) integrated with the AR/VR environment
a network interface for interfacing the multiple users with the AR/VR environment
a topic analyzer, comprising a probabilistic topic model, to generate a topic analysis based on interaction between the multiple users in the AR/VR environment, the CDM to use the topic analysis in determining misalignment in a interaction between the multiple users
a database
wherein the CDM receives data collected from the AR/VR environment, including data on interaction between the multiple users in the AR/VR environment
the CDM to determine misalignment in the interaction between the multiple users in the AR/VR environment
the CDM comprising a threshold or criteria, the CDM conducting analysis of the misalignment in the interaction between the multiple users until the threshold or criteria is met
in response to the threshold or criteria being met, the CDM to generate an amelioration for the misalignment and output the amelioration to one or more of the users via the AR/VR environment
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are
presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
(d) Using a probabilistic topic model for topic analysis and using the CDM to determine misalignment based on the topic analysis. A human can analyze the discussion between 2 people and analyze the topic discussed. Additionally, a human can use that analysis to determine if there is a misalignment between the 2 people.
(f) collecting data on the users in the environment. A human can observe and collect data on 2 people.
(g) Determining a misalignment between users in the environment. A human can determine if there is a misalignment between 2 people
(h) Analyzing the misalignment until a criteria is met. A human can perform an analysis of a misalignment and determine if a criteria or threshold is met.
(i) Generating an amelioration and outputting it to the users. A human can send or say a message intended to ameliorate the misalignment
Additional elements are AR/VR system, AR/VR environment, server, CDM, network interface, probabilistic topic model, database.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory
category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including receiving
continuous training data. Thus, the claim is to a system, which is one of the statutory categories
of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a
judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception
when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretations of elements (d), (f)-(i) is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts
performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion . See MPEP
2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Claim element d is directed to a mental step as a human can analyze the discussion between 2 people and analyze the topic discussed. Additionally, a human can use that analysis to determine if there is a misalignment between the 2 people. Claim element f is directed to a mental step as a human can observe and collect data on interactions between people. Claim element h is directed to a mental step as a human can perform an analysis of a misalignment and determine if a criteria or threshold is met. Claim element i is directed to a mental step as a human can send or say a message intended to ameliorate the misalignment. Hence, these steps can be performed by human, using “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely do,' ” and thus can practically be performed in the human mind, In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Therefore, these limitations are considered together as an abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the
claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional elements are AR/VR system, AR/VR environment, server, CDM, network interface, probabilistic topic model, database.
These additional elements provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following
considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply
it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1)
whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of
how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other
machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the
application of the judicial exception. . Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to
significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of
additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
At Step 2A, the additional elements of AR/VR system, AR/VR environment, server, CDM, network interface, probabilistic topic model, database were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. Mere
instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Even when considered in
combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or
other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an
inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As such Claim 1 is patent illegible.
The analysis above is applicable to Claims 9-12 and 20.
Regarding Claim 2 and 13, a human can document the location at which users are located.
Regarding Claim 3 and 14, a human can determine the time between utterances in a conversation.
Regarding Claim 4 and 15, a human can offer a suggestion to others.
Regarding Claim 5 and 16, a human can provide a location to where additional relevant resources are located.
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, a human can determine a score for a misalignment.
Regarding Claim 7 and 18, a human can document the previous behaviors of users and record it.
Regarding Claim 8 and 19, a human can record how they ameliorated the misalignment.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bart(US PGPub 20210287664) in view of Alkov(US PGPub 20100023877).
Regarding Claim 1, Bart teaches a topic analyzer, comprising a probabilistic topic model, to generate a topic analysis based on interaction between the multiple users(The topics can be discovered by topic models such as latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA)[0019]), the CDM(trained machine learning model 110) to use the topic analysis in determining misalignment in a interaction between the multiple users(The cues 112-115 may include any combination of latent topics, prosodic cues, textual representations etc., that can detect a misalignment in the conversation[0015]); wherein the CDM receives data collected from environment, including data on interaction between the multiple users(One or more audio streams of a conversation 100 between a first party 102 and a second party 104 are recorded, although more than two parties may be involved.[0014]), the CDM to determine misalignment in the interaction between the multiple users in the environment(The trained machine learning model 110 (e.g., the data representing trained state of the machine learning structure) can be used in one or more processors to detect misalignments in subsequent digitized conversations[0017]), the CDM comprising a threshold or criteria(For example, the alignment data determined via the classifier 328 may be used by a real-time dashboard 330.[0027]), the CDM conducting analysis of the misalignment in the interaction between the multiple users until the threshold or criteria is met(The dashboard 330 is updated after every call with alignment statistics[0027]), in response to the threshold or criteria being met(Sudden or gradual drops in performance compared to normal baseline for that agent can be detected[0027]), the CDM to generate an amelioration for the misalignment and output the amelioration to one or more of the users(used to schedule breaks, adjust working hours[0027], Interpretation: the amelioration in Bart is scheduling a break or adjusting the working hours for one or more users).
Bart does not teach an AR/VR environment, a server supporting the AR/VR environment, a network interface for interfacing the multiple users with the AR/VR environment, a database and data collected from the AR/VR environment, including data on interaction between the multiple users in the AR/VR environment.
Alkov teaches an AR/VR environment(virtual world 110), a server supporting the AR/VR environment(virtual world host server 210), a network interface(clients 220 over computer communications network 230) for interfacing the multiple users with the AR/VR environment(Fig 1), a database(organizational data structure 160, data store 260) and data collected from the AR/VR environment, including data on interaction between the multiple users in the AR/VR environment(statements 130 determined to be part of the conversation can be written to an organizational data structure 160 in memory according to the conversation, its participants and the timing of the conversation[0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Bart to incorporate the VR environment of Alkov because it would permit participants to truly enjoy freedom of motion and exploration within the virtual world(Alkov 0006).
Regarding Claims 9-12 and 20, the claims recite similar limitations to Claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 2, Alkov teaches the data collected comprises user/avatar location(geographic and temporal metrics 140, 150 for the statements 130. In this regard, the geographic proximity of the different avatars 120 can be computed as part of the geographic metrics 140[0016]).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 3, Alkov teaches the data collected comprises text inter-arrival time(frequency of the statements 130 from individual ones of the avatars 120 along with the temporal interval between different statements 130 of the avatars[0016]).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 6, Bart teaches the CDM quantifies a detected misalignment(Quantifying alignment/misalignment allows, for example, determining whether a change to operating procedures improves customer understanding) to determine whether to generate the amelioration.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, Alkov teaches the database stores previous user behavior and interactions in the AR/VR environment (statements 130 determined to be part of the conversation can be written to an organizational data structure 160 in memory according to the conversation, its participants and the timing of the conversation.[0017]). The combination of Bart in view of Alkov teaches the CDM(taught by Bart) being interfaced with the database(taught by Alkov).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4-5, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bart(US PGPub 20210287664) in view of Alkov(US PGPub 20100023877) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olsen(US PGPub 20190005023).
Regarding Claim 4, neither Bart nor Alkov teach the amelioration comprises a suggestion to the one or more users.
However, Olsen teaches the amelioration comprises a suggestion to the one or more users(For instance, a participant of a conversation may register with conversation assistance application to help the participant during a conversation by providing hints and relevant information being discussed during the conversation.[0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Bart in view of Alkov with the hint of Olsen because it would minimize misunderstanding of words and phrases used by participants during a conversation(Olsen Abstract).
Claim 15 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, neither Bart nor Alkov teach the amelioration comprises a link to an additional resource related to the misalignment.
However, Olsen teaches the amelioration comprises a link to an additional resource related to the misalignment(to help the participants resolve potential misinterpretations and misunderstanding. Additionally or alternatively, different types of information and resources such as but not limited to electronic files, documents, spreadsheets, websites, snippets of information, as well as links to these resources (collectively referred to as documents in the present disclosure) may be provided[0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Bart in view of Alkov with the hint of Olsen because it would minimize misunderstanding of words and phrases used by participants during a conversation(Olsen Abstract).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bart(US PGPub 20210287664) in view of Alkov(US PGPub 20100023877) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vaculin(US PGPub 20190348063).
Regarding Claim 8, neither Bart nor Alkov teach the CDM further stored record of the amelioration in the database.
However Vaculin teaches storing the record of the amelioration in the database(the learning system 130 to store outcomes(mapped to record) associated with suggestions(mapped to ameliorations)[0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Bart in view of Alkov with the storage of Vaculin because may be discoverable patterns across many conversations that can be used to assist individuals in future interactions(Vaculin 0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUN R SWAMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9763. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/ARJUN SWAMY/Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights