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. Claim 1 recites a method, comprising: receiving, by a computer program, a user speech or a user action from a user of the computer program, the computer program comprising a virtual agent. The limitation of receiving, by a computer program, a user speech or a user action from a user of the computer program, the computer program comprising a virtual agent, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a computer program,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a computer program” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user listening to another user speaking. Similarly, the limitations of: receiving, identifying, retrieving, generating, providing, converting, and updating are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. 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 claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – by a computer program. The by a computer program is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is 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 by a computer program 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. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0248004 A1 to Nelson (hereinafter “Nelson”).
Concerning claim 1, Nelson discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computer program, a user speech or a user action from a user of the computer program, the computer program comprising a virtual agent (Abstract, paragraphs [0053], [0054], [0126], [0127], [0171]);
identifying a user intent from the user speech or the user action (paragraphs [0053], [0133]);
retrieving saved user-specific memories, static data, and an application state for the computer program (paragraphs [0108], [0123], [0129], [0137]-[0141], [0149], [0163]-[0165]);
generating a prompt based on the user speech or the user action, the saved user-specific memories, the static data, and the application state (paragraphs [0082], [0110], [0130]);
providing the prompt to a text generation module and receiving a suggested action for the virtual agent (paragraphs [0080]-[0083], [0143]);
converting the suggested action into virtual agent speech and a virtual agent action, wherein the virtual agent outputs the virtual agent speech and takes the virtual agent action (paragraphs [0054], [0068], [0082]-[0084], [0110], [0143]); and
updating the saved user-specific memories, the static data, and/or the application state with the virtual agent speech and the virtual agent action (paragraphs [0061], [0076]-[0077], [0123], [0130], [0143]).
Concerning claims 2 and 12, Nelson discloses wherein the computer program comprises a game (paragraphs [0081]-[0083], [0148]).
Concerning claims 3 and 13, Nelson discloses wherein the virtual agent comprises an in-game virtual companion (paragraphs [0073], [0077], [0081]-[0083], [0148]).
Concerning claims 5 and 15, Nelson discloses wherein the saved user-specific memories comprise a history of interactions between the user and the virtual agent (paragraphs [0060]-[0062], [0073], [0077]).
Concerning claims 6 and 16, Nelson discloses wherein the interactions comprise the virtual agent action and the virtual agent speech (paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0092], [0110]).
Concerning claims 7 and 17, Nelson discloses wherein the application state comprises a location of the virtual agent, statistics for the virtual agent, and a status of items in the computer program (paragraphs [0059], [0077], [0130], [0144]-[0146], [0163]).
Concerning claims 8 and 18, Nelson discloses further comprising: receiving, from the user, feedback on the virtual agent speech or the virtual agent action; and updating virtual agent traits based on the feedback (paragraphs [0061], [0101], [0102], [0110], [0127]-[0129], [0143], [0149], [0157]).
Concerning claims 9 and 19, Nelson discloses wherein the prompt comprises text based on the user speech or the user action, the saved user-specific memories, the static data, and the application and framing text (paragraphs [0080]-[0082], [0096]-[0098], [0129]).
Concerning claims 10 and 20, Nelson discloses wherein the virtual agent action is further based on a goal for the virtual agent (paragraphs [0083]-[0086], [0110], [0141]-[0143]).
Concerning claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1.
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) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson in view of US Publication No. 2022/0036153 A1 to O’Malia et al. (hereinafter “O’Malia”).
Concerning claims 4 and 14, Nelson lacks specifically disclosing, however, O’Malia discloses wherein the text generation module comprises a large language model (paragraphs [0017]-[0020], [0032]-[0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of a large language model as disclosed by O’Malia in the system of Nelson in order to provide the most appropriate and successful actions in the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, 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 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights