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 .
Status of Claims
This application is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12-14, and 17 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of Applicant’s Response filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-9, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea since they claims are defined by machine readable executable log implemented via artificial intelligence. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that, as outlined below, the claims recite one or more abstract ideas. The implementation of such in machine readable logic represents the generic computer implementation thereof. Furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using AI. As such, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof since the claims bring forth a technical and material improvement to programmable AI. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims merely apply the abstract idea of creating a digital representation of oneself using AI. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that the Examiner improperly characterized one or more abstract ideas as well-understood, routine, and conventional without providing proper factual support. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that no limitations have been characterized as extra-solution activity below, and therefore factual support for their being well-understood, routine, and conventional is not required. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that the claims are similar to those considered eligible by the Office since they “control” and govern how machine learning is used. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do no such thing. Rather, the claims recite machine learning at a high level of generality and give no detail as to how it is used, how it is applied to the problem, or how it actually controls the workings of the everself. As outlined below, at this level of breadth, the claims do no more than require the application of the abstract ideas using machine learning. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-16 of Applicant’s response filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 21 recites elements (i)-(iv) and a centralized access-control server, elements, among others, that are not seen in claims 1-17 and 19-20. Furthermore, claims 1-17 and 19-21 recite delivery and access conditions, delivery conditions which make created digital content accessible to a recipient upon computational fulfillment thereof, elements, among others, not seen in claim 21.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, the claim recites “a processing system comprising one or more processors and memory storing executable instructions” and further indicates that an everself comprising an artificial intelligence entity crafted by accumulating and processing data and using machine learning and Ai including generative AI is executed by the processing system. However, no description is given in the specification, or in the originally filed claims, as to any processing system, processor, or memory. Furthermore, no description is given as to how these steps are to be executed using these elements. The specification is silent as to any steps or algorithm as to how a processor would use machine learning and artificial intelligence including generative AI to replicate preferences of a user to form a digital clone of this type. No particular types of models are described, no algorithm for training the models is described, and no indication is given as to how the outcome of creating this digital clone is accomplished. Since the specification does not describe these physical components, and also does not describe how these physical components would be programmed to form a digital clone of this type using machine learning, AI, and generative AI, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, the claims recites “wherein access and execution events associated with said digital content and said digital assets are recorded and executed by said everself.” However, no description is given in the specification of an everself recording and executing access and execution events associated with digital content. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how this step is accomplished without a description of it in the specification. Since the specification does not describe how the everself records and executes access and execution events associated with digital content, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, the claims recites “wherein each said delivery condition is evaluated and executed by said everself using machine-learning-based analysis of said accumulated data, said digital assets and said instructions each said delivery condition making said digital content accessible to a recipient upon computational fulfillment thereof.” However, no description is given in the specification of an everself evaluating and executing delivery conditions using machine-learning-based analysis of accumulated data, digital, assets, and instructions. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how this step is accomplished without a description of it in the specification. Since the specification does not describe how the everself performs this step using machine learning based analysis of data, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, the claims recites “wherein said everself is trained and learns from said user and using artificial intelligence (AI), including said machine learning, based on the accumulation of said data, said assets and said instructions.” However, no description is given in the specification of an everself being trained and learning from a user using artificial intelligence including machine learning based on an accumulation of data, assets, and instructions. No description is given as to any training step, training algorithm, type of model used, or how these particular elements are used to train and teach the everself. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how this step is accomplished without a description of it in the specification. Since the specification does not describe how the everself is trained and learns in this manner, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-17 and 19-20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because they depend from claim 1 and do not cure the above deficiencies.
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are not drawn to subject matter which is within one of the four statutory categories.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding independent claim 1 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 1, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
an everself. . . said everself comprising an artificial intelligence entity crafted by accumulating and processing data, digital assets and instructions from a user and using machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) including generative AI to thereby replicate preferences of said user and form a digital clone of said user such that said digital clone is adapted to mirror characteristics and follow said instructions of said user; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could accumulate and process data to replicate preferences of a user and form a digital clone of oneself; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social activities and following rules since the element recites the creation of a virtual version of oneself for use in a virtual environment which comprises a social activity and following rules and instructions)
a pod governed by said everself, said pod generated from a data input, said pod comprising a data capsule capable with blockchain said pod controlled by said everself, said pod serving as a secure repository for digital content and said assets stored within said data capsule wherein access and execution events associated with said digital content and said digital assets are recorded and executed by said everself. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could create a pod comprising data of this type; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social activities and following rules since the element recites the creation of a pod which acts as a secure repository for contents to be embedded in an environment which comprises a social activity and following rules and instructions)
one or more delivery and access conditions associated with said digital content and said digital assets within said pod, each said delivery and access condition being defined by machine-readable executable logic implemented via said everself capable with a smart contract on said blockchain, wherein execution of said delivery and access conditions selectively enables access to said digital content and said digital assets, wherein each said delivery condition is evaluated and executed by said everself using machine-learning-based analysis of said accumulated data, said digital assets and said instructions each said delivery condition making said digital content accessible to a recipient upon computational fulfillment thereof; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could create a pod comprising conditions of this type and deliver content upon a recipient fulfill conditions therewith; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social activities and following rules since the element recites the creation of a pod which acts as a secure repository for contents to be embedded in an environment which comprises a social activity and following rules and instructions)
and, wherein said everself is trained and learns from said user and using artificial intelligence (AI), including said machine learning, based on the accumulation of said data, said assets and said instructions to thereby increase a capability of said everself to autonomously evaluate each said delivery and access condition and control execution of said instructions and said smart contract such that said everself carries and enforces said characteristics of said user as said digital clone within said one or more computing environments. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could train and learn about a user for the purpose of creating a version of oneself which may interact with a digital world; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social activities and following rules since the element recites the training and learning about a user for the purpose of creating a version of oneself which may interact with a digital world which comprises a social activity and following rules and instructions)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A computer-implemented platform, comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processing system comprising one or more processors and memory storing executable instructions; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
executed by said processing system, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
said everself comprising an artificial intelligence entity crafted by accumulating and processing data, digital assets and instructions from a user and using machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) including generative AI to thereby replicate preferences of said user and form a digital clone of said user such that said digital clone is adapted to mirror characteristics and follow said instructions of said user; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of blockchain; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using machine learning, AI, and generative AI since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes these elements as a tool for performing an existing process)
a pod governed by said everself, said pod generated from a data input, said pod comprising a data capsule capable with blockchain said pod controlled by said everself, said pod serving as a secure repository for digital content and said assets stored within said data capsule wherein access and execution events associated with said digital content and said digital assets are recorded and executed by said everself, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of blockchain; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using the blockchain since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes blockchain as a tool for performing an existing process)
said pod being adapted to embed in one or more computing environments and be distributed therein; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
one or more delivery and access conditions associated with said digital content and said digital assets within said pod, each said delivery and access condition being defined by machine-readable executable logic implemented via said everself capable with a smart contract on said blockchain, wherein execution of said delivery and access conditions selectively enables access to said digital content and said digital assets, wherein each said delivery condition is evaluated and executed by said everself using machine-learning-based analysis of said accumulated data, said digital assets and said instructions each said delivery condition making said digital content accessible to a recipient upon computational fulfillment thereof; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of blockchain; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using the blockchain, smart contracts, and machine learning, since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes blockchain, smart contracts, and machine learning as a tool for performing an existing process)
and, wherein said everself is trained and learns from said user and using artificial intelligence (AI), including said machine learning, based on the accumulation of said data, said assets and said instructions to thereby increase a capability of said everself to autonomously evaluate each said delivery and access condition and control execution of said instructions and said smart contract such that said everself carries and enforces said characteristics of said user as said digital clone. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of artificial intelligence; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using Ai, machine learning, and smart contracts, since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes Ai, machine learning, and smart contracts as a tool for performing an existing process)
. . . within said one or more computing environments. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-17 and 19-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein said one or more computing environments is selected from the group consisting of a social platform, virtual reality, metaverse, text, audio, and visual.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the environment used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 3:
wherein said everself is capable of being disseminated from said user to others.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the everself used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
wherein said pod, as part of said data capsule, encompasses evers contents, wherein said evers contents include diverse data elements.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the contents of the pod used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 5:
wherein said diverse data elements can be embedded in chats, spaces and posts.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the contents of the pod used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 6:
wherein said pod can be interacted with by said user, by said others, or by said AI and said AI, in turn, can interact with said pod.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the pod used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 7:
wherein said delivery conditions are based on said instructions, said instructions including a location, a time, a date, a moment or a person.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 8:
wherein said instructions are pre-created by said user within a social or web 3.0 enabled platform to be later crafted and managed by said platform, thereby forming a metevers environment.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of a web 3.0 platform; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a web 3.0 platform, since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes a web 3.0 platform as a tool for performing an existing process.
Claim 9:
wherein said pod can act as space, said space being a more versatile form of said data capsule to thereby be a positioned-based display capable of holding said digital content.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the pod used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social activities and following rules since the element recites the use of a pod to display digital content in a particular space in a digital world which comprises a social activity and following rules and instructions.
Claim 10:
wherein when said everself is trained by said user, said user may interact with said digital clone.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could train and learn about a user for the purpose of creating a version of oneself which may interact with a digital world and which may interact with the user themselves; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in the form of social activities and following rules since the element recites the training and learning about a user for the purpose of creating a version of oneself which may interact with a digital world and may interact with the user themselves which comprises a social activity and following rules and instructions.
Claim 11:
further comprising links, said links representing unique contact types established by said others for communication with unknown entities.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of a links; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a links, since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes a links as a tool for performing an existing process.
Claim 12:
wherein said links further include link levels, wherein said link levels indicate a number of times said link is passed such that a link holder can nominate said others to engage with said links.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of a links; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a links, since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes a links as a tool for performing an existing process.
Claim 13:
wherein said delivery condition is a future unity, said future unity being an event pre-arranged by said user and triggered by said others, or said everself, thereby activating future events.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 14:
wherein said delivery condition is a future moment, said future moment being a point-in-time condition set by said user to control delivery of said digital content by said everself.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 15:
wherein said delivery condition is a spot, said spot being a location-based condition created by said user such that said user can create a geo location or a virtual location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 16:
wherein said spot can be nominated such that said others can accept or hold said spot.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 17:
wherein said delivery condition is a secret, said secret being a custom, user-created element selected from the group consisting of questions, games, biometric verifications, challenges and puzzles governed by said everself.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 19:
wherein said pod includes a verified unique, said verified unique being a blockchain-based digital asset entity created after a review and approval.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the delivery conditions used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 20:
wherein said pod accommodates cryptocurrency.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the particular computer environment or field of use of a cryptocurrency; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a cryptocurrency, since the claim merely recites the idea or solution of an outcome without providing details as to how the solution is accomplished and further merely invokes a cryptocurrency as a tool for performing an existing process.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-17 and 19-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights