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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to communications: Original application, filed 1 February 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marino (U.S. Publication 2016/0117942 A1) in view of Horger (U.S. Publication 2024/0232543 A1).
As per independent claim 1, Marino teaches a method (See Marino, paragraph 0022) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, user information to create a user profile, wherein the user information includes natural language input (See Marine, paragraphs 0046 and 0070, describing using natural language input to create a user profile);
creating, by one or more processors, the user profile for a user, wherein the user profile is based on the user information (See Marino, paragraph 0070, describing creating the user profile based on the user information, such as determined career path information and a comprehensive preference assessment);
generating, by one or more processors, a dynamic story using artificial intelligence, wherein the dynamic story is based on the user information… (See Marino, paragraphs 0017 and 0031, describing using artificial intelligence models to generate a dynamic story detailing information such as: identification of preferred employment; strategic alignment of career training with sixteen career clusters identified by the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education; virtual job shadowing experiences within preferred careers; extended practice opportunities with the knowledge, skills, and vocabulary needed to actively participate in the career; a dynamic portfolio of virtual experiences that generate a customized resume; an individualized learning plan that provides a roadmap to the intended career path).
Marino does not teach expressly:
displaying, by one or more processors, the dynamic story,
however, Horger teaches this limitation (See Horger, paragraphs 0028, 0062, and 0070, describing using artificial intelligence to evaluate user preferences and generate a digital story based on the user preferences, further displaying a customized sequence of story portions).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the display of the digitally created story based on user information of Horger with the generated user profile and dynamic story of Marino. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to navigate through the tailored content, make choices that influence the narrative further, and customize aspects of the story portions throughout their experience, as taught by Horger (See Horger, paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Horger with Marino for the benefit of allowing the user to navigate through the tailored content, make choices that influence the narrative further, and customize aspects of the story portions throughout their experience, to obtain the invention as specified in clam 1.
As per dependent claim 2, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Marino and Horger also teach wherein the user information includes a picture, an answer to a question about a user, a resume, a professional experience, an educational experience, a lived experience, and a goal for the user (See Marino, paragraphs 0065, 0080, 0017, 0016, 0022, and 0003).
As per dependent claim 3, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Marino and Horger also teach analyzing, by one or more processors, the user information to determine how to represent on the user profile; categorizing, by one or more processors, the user information into groups; assigning, by one or more processors, numerical values to lived experiences, wherein the lived experiences include educational experiences, personal experiences, cultural experiences, and skills and qualifications associated with one or more professions; and creating, by one or more processors, a metric system of the lived experiences, based on role-playing game metrics (See Marino, paragraphs 0030-0032 and 0063).
As per dependent claim 4, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 3 as described above. Marino and Horger also teach identifying, by one or more processors, the user information; mapping, by one or more processors, the user information with metadata associated with the user; and storing, by one or more processors, the mapping of the user information with the metadata associated with the user (See Horger, paragraphs 0037, 0073-0075, and claim 6, describing that the analysis of user input includes comparing the specified preferences and customization options with metadata associated with the story portions, including tags, keywords, or annotations). The motivation to combine Marino and Horger remains as noted with reference to claim 1 above.
As per dependent claim 5, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Marino and Horger also teach creating, by one or more processors, a dynamic digital human to serve as a digital representation of the user on one or more platforms, wherein the digital human is an avatar that produces human body language, backed by artificial intelligence that can interpret an input of the users and give facts back to the user and non-verbal responses (See Marino, paragraph 0066).
As per dependent claim 6, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Marino and Horger also teach creating, by one or more processors, a dynamic user strategy guide, wherein the dynamic user strategy guide is a comprehensive manual that details and maps out one or more strategies to accomplish a goal or a task and automatically updates when additional user information is received (See Marino, Figure 5 and paragraph 0070).
As per independent claim 8, Marino teaches a computer program product (See Marino, paragraph 0004) comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising… (See Marino, paragraph 0004).
Independent claim 8 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of independent claim 1 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 1.
As per dependent claim 9, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 9 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 2 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 2.
As per dependent claim 10, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 10 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 3 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 3.
As per dependent claim 11, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Claim 11 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 4 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 4.
As per dependent claim 12, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 12 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 5 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 5.
As per dependent claim 13, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 13 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 6 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 6.
As per independent claim 15, Marino teaches a computer system (See Marino, paragraph 0005) comprising:
one or more computer processors, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising… (See Marino, paragraph 0005).
Independent claim 15 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of independent claim 1 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 1.
As per dependent claim 16, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 15 as described above. Claim 16 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 2 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 2.
As per dependent claim 17, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 15 as described above. Claim 17 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 3 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 3.
As per dependent claim 18, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Claim 18 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 4 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 4.
As per dependent claim 19, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 15 as described above. Claim 19 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 5 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 5.
As per dependent claim 20, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 15 as described above. Claim 20 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 6 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 6.
4. Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marino (U.S. Publication 2016/0117942 A1) in view of Horger (U.S. Publication 2024/0232543 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Moore (U.S. Publication 2023/0039710 A1).
As per dependent claim 7, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Marino and Horger do not teach expressly wherein the user information is received from a user through voice and converted to text for natural language processing purposes, however, Moore teaches this limitation (See Moore, paragraph 0406, describing receiving user information through voice-based inputs that can be readily converted to text). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the voice-based user input converted to text of Moore with the user information of Marino and Horger. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user information to be easily inputted and then saved as a manageable file size, as taught by Moore (See Moore, paragraph 0406). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Moore with Marino and Horger for the benefit of allowing the user information to be easily inputted and then saved as a manageable file size to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As per dependent claim 14, Marino and Horger teach the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Claim 14 additionally incorporates substantially similar subject matter as that of claim 7 above, and is additionally rejected along the same rationale as used in the rejection of claim 7.
5. It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See, MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
- Guo (U.S. Publication 2025/0245276 A1) discloses generation of data story recommendations via elicited user feedback.
- Sezer (U.S. Publication 2025/0078352 A1) discloses automated story generation.
- Ingel (U.S. Publication 2025/0006182 A1) discloses generating and operating personalized artificial entities.
- Lowenthal (U.S. Publication 2024/0394641 A1) discloses generating employee performance reviews, goals, development plans, and workforce planning, succession planning, career and professional development text and narratives using neural network machine learn models.
- Lytle (U.S. Publication 2024/0265043 A1) discloses generating a digital avatar that embodies audio, visual and behavioral traits of an individual while providing responses related to the individual’s life story.
- Liang (U.S. Publication 2023/0420097 A1) discloses an adaptive lifemap system.
- Alford (U.S. Publication 2023/0218214 A1) discloses capturing, preserving, and representing human experiences and personality through a digital interface.
- Marugaiah (U.S. Publication 2022/0230143 A1) discloses training an avatar to assist a user in career advancement.
- Raut (U.S. Publication 2022/0092379 A1) discloses generating social interaction platforms for digital entities within extended reality environments.
- Cole (U.S. Publication 2020/0218783 A1) discloses defining and presenting a narrative.
- Zhou (U.S. Publication 2020/0151256 A1) discloses conversation content generation based on user professional level.
- Phillips (U.S. Publication 2004/0219493 A1) discloses interactive learning and career management systems.
- Jones (U.S. Publication 2024/0347181 A1) discloses facilitating short-term staffing in the healthcare industry.
- Grau (U.S. Publication 2018/0130156 A1) discloses automatically generating a personalized course profile.
- Trim (U.S. Publication 2022/0005368 A1) discloses upskill management.
- Sendra (U.S. Publication 2024/0078497 A1) discloses a whole self portfolio.
- Smith (U.S. Patent 12,182,133 B2) discloses tracking progression of measured phenomena.
- Cohen (U.S. Patent 12,175,394 B2) discloses computerized interactive skill training.
- Wang (U.S. Patent 10,212,253 B2) discloses customized profile summaries for online social networks.
- Taupin (WO2023/047071 A1) discloses processing a digital content item expressing a story about an experience.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laurie Ries whose telephone number is (571) 272-4095. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephen Hong, can be reached at (571) 272-4124.
8. Immediately below this section is a citation to U.S. patent(s) and/or U.S. patent application publication(s).
The USPTO does not provide copies of U.S. patents or U.S. patent application publications with Office actions. Reviewing the U.S. patent(s) and/or U.S. patent application publication(s) cited below is important in deciding how to respond to the Office action. To obtain copies of the cited U.S. patent(s) and/or U.S. patent application publication(s), any of the following options may be used, free of charge:
1) Patent Center (for all users if this application is published; for registered users associated with this application if this application has not published) — A link to Patent Center is available at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. To obtain the below cited U.S. patent(s) or U.S. patent application publication(s), open Patent Center. Enter the present application number (Application #) in the search box and then select the search button (magnifying glass). Once the “Application Data” is retrieved, select the “Display References” link on the left side of the screen. With the “U.S. Patent Documents” tab selected, select “View” next to the document which cites the desired U.S. patent(s) and/or U.S. patent application publication(s). Select the “PDF” link next to each desired U.S. patent and/or U.S. patent application publication to download the relevant document(s). Information on becoming a registered user can be found at www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/getting-started-new-users. For additional information regarding Patent Center or becoming a registered user, contact the Electronic Business Center at 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free), 571-272-4100 (local), or by email at ebc@uspto.gov;
2) Patent Public Search tool (for all users) — A link to the Patent Public Search tool is available at www.uspto.gov/PatentPublicSearch. To find a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, open the Basic Search feature of the Patent Public Search tool by selecting “Basic Search”. Type the U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication number in the “Quick lookup” box without any punctuation, letters, or symbols (for example, U.S. Patent No. 10,000,000 should be entered as 10000000). Perform any of the below additional formatting that may apply:
i) for U.S. utility patents with a patent number less than one million, add the necessary leading zero(s) before the patent number to make 7 total digits (for example, U.S. Patent No. 123,456 should be entered as 0123456);
ii) for U.S. utility and plant patent application publications, make sure that any necessary zeros are included after the year so that the full 11 total digits of the application publication number are provided (for example, U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0123456 should be entered as 20210123456);
iii) for U.S. design patents with a patent number greater than or equal to one hundred thousand, type the letter “D” in front of the patent number with no space in between (for example, U.S. Design Patent No. 123,456 should be entered as D123456); and for U.S. design patents with a patent number less than one hundred thousand, add the necessary leading zero(s) before the patent number to make 6 total digits before typing the letter “D” in front (for example, U.S. Design Patent No. 12,345 should be entered as D012345);
iv) for U.S. reissue patents, add any necessary leading zeros before the patent number to make 5 total digits, and type the letters “RE” in front of the patent number and any leading zeros with no space in between (for example, U.S. Reissue Patent No. 1,234 should be entered as RE01234); and
v) for U.S. plant patents, add any necessary leading zeros before the patent number to make 5 total digits, and type the letters “PP” in front of the patent number and any leading zeros with no space in between (for example, U.S. Plant Patent No. 1,234 should be entered as PP01234).
Then select the "Search" button in the “Quick lookup” box. The U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication will be listed in the “Search results” field at the bottom of the screen. Select the “PDF” link to download the relevant document. For questions regarding Patent Public Search, please contact the Public Search Facility at 571-272-3275 or psf@uspto.gov.
3) Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC) (for all users) — PTRCs are libraries located throughout the U.S. that provide specialized resources regarding patents and trademarks to the public. Information about PTRCs may be found at www.uspto.gov/PTRC; or
4) commercial sources.
Copies of the U.S patent(s) and/or U.S. patent application publication(s) cited below may also be purchased for a fee preferably from the Patent and Trademark Copy Fulfillment Branch’s Certified Copy Center storefront at https://certifiedcopycenter.uspto.gov or by written request to Mail Stop Patent and Trademark Copy Fulfillment Branch, Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. For information regarding purchasing copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications, contact the Patent and Trademark Copy Fulfillment Branch at 1-800-972-6382 (toll free), 571-272-3150 (local), or by email at dsd@uspto.gov.
Some of the above options will cause U.S. patent(s) and/or U.S. patent application publication(s) to be downloaded in Portable Document Format (PDF). The downloaded documents can be viewed and printed using most commercially available web browsers. Free PDF viewers are additionally available through online sources, such as Adobe Systems Incorporated at www.adobe.com/acrobat/pdf-reader.html.
For additional information or questions, contact the Pro Se Assistance Center at 1-866-767-3848 or by email at ProSeAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/LAURIE A RIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
