DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 9/8/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4-6, 13, 15-16 and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claim 1, 4-13 and 15-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §103, respectively. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
With the amendment of claims 1, 4-6, 13, 15-16 and 18-20, and the cancellation of claims 2-3 and 14, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Tsuji et al. 655 and Agarwal et al. do not teach “wherein the second server is configured to manage a first metaverse environment associated with the first persona and a second metaverse environment associated with the second persona,” etc.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 8/6/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0005]) that technologies that forms a virtual digital avatar by selecting predefined options may not sufficiently reflect the user's characteristics and tastes. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through generating multi-persona based on personal characteristic data using the steps of “collecting sensing data, receiving sensing data, analyzing sensing data, generating personal characteristics data, generating persona data, storing personal characteristics data, providing default parameters, outputting parameters,” etc. Applicant’s method/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1, 4-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “generating multi-persona based on personal characteristic data,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0007]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-13 and 15-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method/apparatus for performing the steps of “collecting sensing data, receiving sensing data, analyzing sensing data, generating personal characteristics data, generating persona data, storing personal characteristics data, providing default parameters, outputting parameters,” etc., that is “generating multi-persona based on personal characteristic data,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-13 and 15-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface (Applicant’s Specification [0046], [0050], [0064]), etc.) to perform steps of “collecting sensing data, receiving sensing data, analyzing sensing data, generating personal characteristics data, generating persona data, storing personal characteristics data, providing default parameters, outputting parameters,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1, 4-13 and 15-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0046], [0050], [0064], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface,” etc. to perform the functions of “collecting sensing data, receiving sensing data, analyzing sensing data, generating personal characteristics data, generating persona data, storing personal characteristics data, providing default parameters, outputting parameters,” etc. The recited “electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1, 4-13 and 15-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 4-12 and 14-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 4-12 and 14-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 4-12 and 14-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/8/2025 with respect to claims 1, 4-13 and 15-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 9/8/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/8/2025 with respect to claims 1, 4-13 and 15-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Tsuji et al. 655 and Agarwal et al. do not render obvious the present invention because Tsuji et al. 655 and Agarwal et al. do not disclose “wherein the second server is configured to manage a first metaverse environment associated with the first persona and a second metaverse environment associated with the second persona,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Tsuji et al. 655 and Agarwal et al. to the amended limitations have been found persuasive. Tsuji et al. 655 and Agarwal et al. do not teach “wherein the second server is configured to manage a first metaverse environment associated with the first persona and a second metaverse environment associated with the second persona.” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “analyze the sensing data in synchronization with a pre-learning model stored in the first server, generate personal characteristic data based on the sensing data, wherein the personal characteristic data includes information about at least one of personality and disposition of the user, feelings and emotional patterns of the user, and life patterns of the user, and generate at least a first persona and a second persona corresponding to the user based on the personal characteristic data,” and ““ wherein the second server is configured to manage a first metaverse environment associated with the first persona and a second metaverse environment associated with the second persona.” These are information processing steps that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “analyze the sensing data in synchronization with a pre-learning model stored in the first server, generate personal characteristic data based on the sensing data, wherein the personal characteristic data includes information about at least one of personality and disposition of the user, feelings and emotional patterns of the user, and life patterns of the user, and generate at least a first persona and a second persona corresponding to the user based on the personal characteristic data,” and ““ wherein the second server is configured to manage a first metaverse environment associated with the first persona and a second metaverse environment associated with the second persona,” are abstract compurational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as data processing. The electronic device, user device, sensors, data analysis device, data storage device, first interface, second interface recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “improved avatar generation technology,” “linking real-world behavioral data with virtual representations,” “creating avatars that better reflect user’s characteristics,” “enabling more accurate and realistic user representations in virtual environments,” “improving the functionality of virtual environments” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Abstract Idea Cannot Supply the Inventive Concept
Applicant’s reliance on “improved avatar generation technology,” “linking real-world behavioral data with virtual representations,” “creating avatars that better reflect user’s characteristics,” “enabling more accurate and realistic user representations in virtual environments,” “improving the functionality of virtual environments,” etc. is misplaced because “the abstract idea itself cannot supply the invention concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance” (Trading Technologies International, Inc. v IBG LLC). Thus, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
DDR Holdings, LLC
Further, the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. provide a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology (i.e. expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites). Simply adding a generic computing device that performs routine and conventional functions (i.e. collecting sensing data, receiving sensing data, analyzing sensing data, generating personal characteristics data, generating persona data, storing personal characteristics data, providing default parameters, outputting parameters, etc.) is not equivalent or similar to addressing an Internet or network centric challenge as is the case in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. While the claims are directed to a process that is performed on a computer, they are not directed to a business challenge that is particular to the Internet. In fact, the claims are not directed to the use of the Internet at all or functions that are particular to the Internet such as the generation of a web page as is the case in the claims of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. Therefore, because the claims fail to provide a technical solution to any network or Internet-centric challenges, the ordered combination of limitations do not amount to significantly more than a method of managing interactions between people and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. As explained above, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, as explained above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683