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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 31, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 31, 2025 for the patent application 18/484,362 filed on October 10, 2023. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 18-20 are amended. Claims 7-8 and 15-17 are cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 18-21 are pending. The first office action of June 12, 2025 and the second office action of August 27, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims rejected under § 112(a)
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.
Claims 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “to assess a database storing narrative data including text, audio, and video data from a plurality of narrators from a plurality of different backgrounds in which a multi-dimensional graph structure of selected attributes is associated with the different backgrounds.” This limitation is not adequately described in the written description of the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, no form of “assessment” is found in the written description. As such, the limitation is reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 10-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependency to claim 9.
Claims rejected under § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9-14 repeatedly recite the limitation “program code.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 9. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 9. Therefore, claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 10-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
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 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), Claim 9 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 21 is directed to “a system-on-chip” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “interactive storytelling,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“parsing collected story narratives into a plurality of story narratives linked by story development questions;
accessing narrative data including text, audio, and video data from a plurality of narrators from a plurality of different backgrounds, in which a multi- dimensional graph structure of selected attributes is associated with the different backgrounds;
presenting a selected story narrative using a selected narrator, including a selected story development question regarding a prediction of a story development in the selected narrative;
determining a difference between the story development in the selected narrative and an answer received in response to the selected story development question;
automatically generating a prompt based on a next, selected story narrative of the story development based on the difference, including a next selected story development question regarding a next prediction of the story development in the next, selected story narrative;
automatically generating, by a generative large language model (LLM) in response to the prompt based on the next, selected story narrative, storyboard panels depicting a next narrative story:
repeating the accessing, the presenting, the determining, selecting and the automatically generating based on a gradually increased psychological distance between a user and the selected narrator according to the multi-dimensional graph structure; and
displaying, during the repeating, the automatically generated story board panels until a final narrative story is depicted by final story board panels.”
Per claim 9:
“…to parse collected story narratives into a plurality of story narratives linked by story development questions;
…to assess narrative data including text, audio, and video data from a plurality of narrators from a plurality of different backgrounds, in which a multi-dimensional (3D) graph structure of selected attributes is associated with the different backgrounds;
…to present a selected story narrative, using a selected narrator including a selected story development question regarding a prediction of a story development in the selected narrative;
…to determine a difference between the story development in the selected narrative and an answer received in response to the selected story development question;
…to automatically generate a prompt based on a next, selected story narrative of the story development based on the difference, including a next selected story development question regarding a next prediction of the story development in the next, selected story narrative;
…to automatically generate, by an image generation tool in response to the prompt based on the next, selected story narrative, storyboard panels depicting a next narrative story;
…to repeat, …to access, …to present, … to determine, …to select and… to automatically generate based on a gradually increased psychological distance between a user and the selected narrator according to the multi-dimensional graph; and
to display… during the repeating, the automatically generated story board panels until a final narrative story is depicted by final story board panels.”
Per claim 21:
“parse collected story narratives into a plurality of story narratives linked by story development questions;
predict a story development in a selected story narrative;
select a narrator from a database storing narrative data including text, audio, and video data from a plurality of narrators from a plurality of different backgrounds according to a psychological distance from a user based on a three-dimensional (3D) graph of attributes associated with the different backgrounds;
present the selected story narrative using the selected narrator, including a selected story development question regarding the predicted story development;
determine a difference between the story development in the selected narrative and an answer received in response to the selected story development question;
automatically generate a prompt based on a next, selected story narrative of the story development based on the difference, including a next selected story development question regarding a next prediction of the story development in the next, selected narrative;
automatically generate, by an image generation tool in response to the prompt based on the next, selected story narrative, storyboard panels depicting a next narrative story;
repeat the parse, the predict, the select, the present, the determine, and the select based on a gradual increase in the psychological distance between the user and the selected narrator according to the 3D graph; and
display, through a user interface of the user device during the repeat, the automatically generated story board panels until a final narrative story is depicted by final story board panels.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
“a processor,” “a database” “a user interface,” “a user device,” “a neural processing unit (NPU),” “a digital signal processor (DSP),” “a graphics processing unit (GPU),” and “a memory,”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a processor,” “a database” “a user interface,” “a user device,” “a neural processing unit (NPU),” “a digital signal processor (DSP),” “a graphics processing unit (GPU),” and “a memory,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “interactive storytelling,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processor,” “a database” “a user interface,” “a user device,” “a neural processing unit (NPU),” “a digital signal processor (DSP),” “a graphics processing unit (GPU),” and “a memory,” are claimed, these are a generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing element. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor,” as described in para. [0065] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“The processor may be a microprocessor, but, in the alternative, the processor may be any commercially available processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine specially configured as described herein.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a database” as described in para. [0048] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0048] In some aspects of the present disclosure, the user activity module 310 may be implemented and/or work in conjunction with the interactive storytelling server 370. In one configuration, a database (DB) 380 stores data related to narrative data (text, audio, video data) from narrators of different backgrounds, which may be displayed as output through the user interface 302.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a database,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering/storing computing element.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a user interface” as described in para. [0068] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0068] The functions described may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof. If implemented in hardware, an example hardware configuration may comprise a processing system in a device. The processing system may be implemented with a bus architecture. The bus may include any number of interconnecting buses and bridges depending on the specific application of the processing system and the overall design constraints. The bus may link together various circuits including a processor, machine-readable media, and a bus interface. The bus interface may connect a network adapter, among other things, to the processing system via the bus. The network adapter may implement signal processing functions. For certain aspects, a user interface (e.g., keypad, display, mouse, joystick, etc.) may also be connected to the bus. The bus may also link various other circuits such as timing sources, peripherals, voltage regulators, power management circuits, and the like, which are well known in the art, and therefore, will not be described any further.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a user interface,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Continuing, the Applicant’s claimed “a user device,” as described in para. [0033] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0033] The interactive storytelling system 300 includes a user monitoring system 301 and an interactive storytelling server 370 in this aspect of the present disclosure. The user monitoring system 301 may be a component of a user device 350. The user device 350 may be a cellular phone (e.g., a smart phone), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless modem, a wireless communications device, a handheld device, a laptop computer, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a tablet, a camera, a gaming device, a netbook, a Smartbook, an Ultrabook, a medical device or equipment, biometric sensors/devices, wearable devices (smart watches, smart clothing, smart glasses, smart wrist bands, smart jewelry (e.g., smart ring, smart bracelet)), an entertainment device (e.g., a music or video device, or a satellite radio), a global positioning system device, or any other suitable device that is configured to communicate via a wireless or wired medium.”
As such, the Applicant’s “a user device,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing element (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product.
Further, the Applicant’s claimed “a neural processing unit (NPU),” “a digital signal processor (DSP),” and “a graphics processing unit (GPU),” as described in para. [0021] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0021] FIG. 1 illustrates an example implementation of the aforementioned system and method for an interactive storytelling system using a system-on-a-chip (SOC) 100, according to aspects of the present disclosure. The SOC 100 may include a single processor or multi-core processors (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) 102), in accordance with certain aspects of the present disclosure. Variables (e.g., neural signals and synaptic weights), system parameters associated with a computational device (e.g., neural network with weights), delays, frequency bin information, and task information may be stored in a memory block. The memory block may be associated with a neural processing unit (NPU) 108, a CPU 102, a graphics processing unit (GPU) 104, a digital signal processor (DSP) 106, a dedicated memory block 118, or may be distributed across multiple blocks. Instructions executed at a processor (e.g., CPU 102) may be loaded from a program memory associated with the CPU 102 or may be loaded from the dedicated memory block 118.”
Here, these additional elements are sufficiently well-known, since the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are so sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory,” as described in para. [0066] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0066] The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the present disclosure may be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two. A software module may reside in any form of storage medium that is known in the art. Some examples of storage media that may be used include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, and so forth. A software module may comprise a single instruction, or many instructions, and may be distributed over several different code segments, among different programs, and across multiple storage media. A storage medium may be coupled to a processor such that the processor can read information from, and write information to, the storage medium. In the alternative, the storage medium may be integral to the processor.”
As such, the Applicant’s “memory,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering/storing computing element.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 10-14 and 18-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-6, 10-14 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 9 or 21. Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on August 21, 2025 related to claims 1-6, 9-14 and 18-21 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicants respectfully submit that the absence of explicit “means for” language rebuts the presumption that the claim element of claims 18-20 is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) invocation is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 9-14 and 17-20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. Additionally, claims 9-20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
In response, claim 17 is canceled and claims 1 and 9 are amended to recite “... in which a multi-dimensional graph structure of selected attributes is associated with the different backgrounds ...,’as supported by FIGURE 4, and paragraphs [0049] to [0051]. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 9-16 and 18-20 are respectfully requested in view of the noted amendments.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s passed amending of claim 9 “to assess…” continues to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), under a theory of new matter. Furthermore, claims 9-14 continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections are not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, additional elements that extend beyond the judicial exception include:
automatically generating, by an image generation tool in response to a prompt
based on the next, selected story narrative, storyboard panels depicting a next narrative story;
repeating the accessing, the presenting, the determining, selecting, and the
automatically generating based on a gradually increased psychological distance between a user
and the selected narrator according to the multi-dimensional graph structure; and
displaying, through a user interface during the repeating, the automatically
generated story board panels until a final narrative story is depicted by final story board panels.
One of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification would understand elements a)-c) cannot realistically be performed by the human mind and are not fairly considered mental processes because a human mind is not capable of performing a computer server-implemented method without a server computer or a user device. Furthermore, attempting to mentally perform each of elements a)-c) would go well beyond using the type of pen-and-paper mental aids that are contemplated and permitted by the MPEP and caselaw as being part of a non-statutory mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “interactive storytelling,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Likewise, with respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Furthermore, the claimed invention includes additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception by automatically generating story boards according to prompts based on the next, selected story narrative. Namely, additional elements a)-c), taken alone and/or in combination, integrate the potential exceptions into a practical application of displaying the automatically generated story board panels until a final narrative story is depicted by final story board panels. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology of providing automated story board generative to expedite the creative process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In view of the remarks, applicants submit claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept and is believed to be patent eligible under Step 2A prong two. The newly submitted claims recite elements similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1 and are believed to be patent eligible under Step 2A prong two.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is not claiming a technologically new and improved “processor,” “database” “user interface,” “user device,” “neural processing unit (NPU),” “digital signal processor (DSP),” “graphics processing unit (GPU),” and “memory.” But merely an application to be applied to an existing “processor,” “database” “user interface,” “user device,” “neural processing unit (NPU),” “digital signal processor (DSP),” “graphics processing unit (GPU),” and “memory,” which does not meaningfully limit the claims to amount to anything “significantly more.” The Applicant’s invention may improve training for mankind, but does nothing for advancing technology. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Finally, the rejected dependent claims are also believed to be directed to patent eligible subject matter, at least by virtue of their dependence on an allowable base claim, in addition to reasons related to their own recitations. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 9, and 21 are believed to be in condition for allowance, and reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1 and 9 are respectfully requested.”
The Applicant respectfully continues to argue “The dependent claims are allowable over the applied references for at least reasons similar to those presented for their base claim, in addition to reasons related to their own recitations. Because each dependent claim is deemed to define an additional inventive aspect, the individual consideration of each on its own merits is respectfully requested. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of the dependent claims are respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with both arguments, for the reasons stated here and above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715