CTFR 18/504,702 CTFR 85209 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 09/29/2025. Claims 7, 15, and 18-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claims 21-23 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 21-23 are pending and addressed below. Examiner’s Note Applicant is advised that this application has been assigned to a new examiner. The examiner has thoroughly reviewed the record, performed additional consideration and searching, and has treated the pending claims on the merits below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 The amendment filed on 09/29/2025, has NOT corrected the 35 U.S.C. 101 deficiencies identified in the Office Action dated 05/29/2025. Thus, the Examiner hereby maintains the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 21-23 that were raised in the Office Action dated 05/29/2025. The 101 rejection has been updated to include analysis regarding the amended limitations and newly added claims. See the rejection and Response to Arguments section below for further detail. 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 8-14, 16-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 9, and 17 herein are directed to an apparatus, method, and medium, respectively , which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., Step 1=Yes) . However, claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more . Claim 1 recites, in part, the abstract idea of modifying an avatar according to preferences of a user (a human) and outputting estimated psychographic data reflecting user preferences before and after said modification . Specifically, claim 1 recites the following limitations comprised within the recited abstract idea: “[…] acquire modification information being information related to modification of an avatar by performing image processing to compare the avatar at a first time point with the avatar at a second time point after the first time point; estimate psychographic data of a user of the avatar, based on the acquired modification information; and output the estimated psychographic data, wherein: the estimated psychographic data is at least one of: psychographic data indicating that the user prefers a feature determined from a component after the modification of the avatar; or psychographic data indicating that the user does not prefer a feature from a component before the modification of the avatar.” Claim(s) 9 and 17 recite(s) substantially similar subject matter and the same subsequent analysis should be applied thereto. The limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 , as drafted, falls within the “ Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, particularly as managing personal behavior. In fact, the newly added “performing image processing” step (especially in light of page 7 of the instant specification) as well as the “estimat[ing] psychographic data” are processes 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 a processor, memory, and executable instructions , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or by aid of pen and paper as observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The examiner reiterates that any avatar creating and animating functionality is outside the scope of the current claims. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A Prong One=Yes) . See MPEP 2106. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) only recite(s) the additional elements of: “an information processing apparatus” (claim 1) “at least one memory storing instructions” (claim 1) “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” (claim 1) “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a program to execute…” (claim 17) The examiner notes there are no additional elements present in claim 9. The additional element(s) of claims 1 and 17 is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of processing and storing ) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, both individually and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 17 do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A Prong Two=Yes) When considering Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the apparatus, memory, processor and medium to perform the judicial exception of claims 1 and 17 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For the same reasons these additional elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. “Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention ( See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter ( See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2B=No) The remaining dependent claims 2-6, and 10-14 appear to merely limit and further define the “modification” in the independent claims, thus further limiting the same abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 10-14 is/are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. Dependent claim(s) 8, 16, and newly added 22 further limit the previously identified abstract idea of Certain Methods, but particularly focused on commercial interactions including advertising. Furthermore, newly added claim 23 further limits the previously identified abstract idea of Mental Process by the recitation of “determin[ing] a start time of modification operation by the user for the modification instruction and an end time of the modification operation” , which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. In addition, newly added claims 21 and 23 recite the additional elements of: “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to estimate the psychographic data by using a machine learning model trained in advance using, as training data, data in which modification information and known psychographic data are associated with each other” (claim 21); “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: modify a component of the avatar by determining the component specified on a user terminal and acquiring a modification instruction for the component” (claim 23) These additional elements using the machine learning model and modifying the avatar are considered to be recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to merely a tool to implement the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”). More specifically regarding the machine learning model, the examiner notes that actual “training” occurs outside the scope of the claim, thus making the model simply an off-the-shelf model used as a tool. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17 and 21-23 are ineligible . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204 A1) (hereinafter Lyle) . As per claim 1 (and similarly the method of claim 9 and the medium of claim 17), Lyle discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions ([0015]) ; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ([0015]) to: acquire modification information being information related to modification of an avatar […] (abstract, see also Fig. 1-3, see also [0021-22], the player has the ability to modify the initial generated character through image editing tools, [0032-33], [0034], [0040-41], the initial player avatar has initial characteristics, over the course of the game the physical characteristics of the avatar changes (i.e., modification information), [0044-45]) by performing image processing to compare the avatar at a first time point with the avatar at a second time point after the first time point (Fig. 3, see also [0041-42], Fig 3 shows changes in physical appearance of an avatar’s body from an initial avatar (i.e., “avatar at a first point in time” as claimed) to a final avatar (i.e., “avatar at a second time point after the first time point” as claimed), [0050], not only do servers track the status of a player but the data set for the avatar with each of its iterations is maintained, [0053], the linking of the changes in the avatar’s appearance to the player’s psychological factors uncover information about the player’s perception, beauty, desirability, strength, etc., this information is leveraged in marketing or advertising, [0079], the characteristic the play views as desirable generates the final version of the avatar, the player’s avatar gradually becomes a character that is more like they would appear) (The examiner notes that the particular image processing feature is claimed so broadly with no limiting features at all, that under a broadest reasonable interpretation all of the teachings regarding the tracking of avatar changes over time from the initial to final avatar, and linking these changes to preferences of the user satisfies the explicit “ performing image processing to compare…” limitation.) ; estimate psychographic data of a user of the avatar, based on the acquired modification information (abstract, see also Fig. 1-3, see also [0032], [0034], the user modifies or otherwise enhances their avatar character, [0040-41], psychological features derived to determine the physical or appearance characteristics that are desirable to the user, the physical appearance of the initial avatar changes to reflect the psychological desires of the player or user, [0044-45]) ; and output the estimated psychographic data (abstract, see also Fig. 1-3, see also [0032], [0034], [0040-41], [0044-45]) , wherein: the estimated psychographic data is at least one of: psychographic data indicating that the user prefers a feature determined from a component after the modification of the avatar; or psychographic data indicating that the user does not prefer a feature determined from a component before the modification of the avatar (abstract, see also Fig. 1-3, see also [0032], [0034], [0040-41], [0042], Fig 3 shows changes in physical appearance of an avatar’s body from an initial avatar (i.e., “before the modification” as claimed) to a final avatar (i.e., “after the modification” as claimed), [0053], the linking of the changes in the avatar’s appearance to the player’s psychological factors uncover information about the player’s perception, beauty, desirability, strength, etc., this information is leveraged in marketing or advertising, [0079], the characteristic the play views as desirable generates the final version of the avatar, the player’s avatar gradually becomes a character that is more like they would appear, [0044-45],) . As per claim 2 (and similarly the method of claim 10), Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle further comprises wherein the modification information includes information indicating whether there is a modification for each component of the avatar (Fig. 3, [0042], final avatar includes arms 124 which have added muscle tone as compared to initial arms 112, a chest 126 with added muscle tone as compared to the initial chest 126, etc.) . As per claim 5 (and similarly the method of claim 13), Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle further discloses wherein the modification information includes information indicating a feature determined from a component before modification of the avatar or a feature determined from a component after modification of the avatar (abstract, Fig. 1, see also [0032], [0034], [0040-41], [0044-45] (Modifications of an avatar take place as the avatars interactions in the virtual world (VW) take place Using the avatar, as play of the game proceeds the player's avatar begins as a character appearing like themselves and gradually becomes a character that is more as they would like to appear. The avatar increases the emotional impact of games by providing strong visual and psychological connections with the player. The avatar may instead begin from an initial character that does not appear similar to the player. The iterations may make the avatar gradually less appealing or with other changes in appearance, in some embodiments.)) . As per claim 8 (and similarly the method of claim 16), Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select a product or a service to be recommended to a user of the avatar by using the estimated psychographic data ([0055], [0077], advertisements for products and/or services representative of recommendations) . As per claim 22, Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: select an advertisement for a product or a service based on estimated psychographic data; and transmit the selected advertisement to a user terminal ([0053], avatar preference information utilized in marketing and advertising to provide more effective advertising to a target audience, advertising agencies may use this information to determine a user’s idea of what ideal beauty is [0055], [0077]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204 A1) (hereinafter Lyle) in view of Ronen et al. (US 2006/0294465 A1) (hereinafter Ronen) . As per claim 3 (and similarly the method of claim 11), Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the modification information includes information indicating the number of times of modification for each component of the avatar. However, Ronen teaches a method and system for creating mobile avatars, customizing or personalizing mobile avatars and distributing mobile avatars including real-time updates thereof across a wireless network. A mobile avatar of the service subscriber is stored in mobile clients across the wireless network, and mobile avatars retrieved from the mobile clients and displayed upon receipt of a call from the service subscriber (abstract) . The mobile avatar 9d of the user is also associated with a version number (i.e., “information indicating the number of times of modification for each component of the avatar” as claimed) 25 that indicates any changes to the mobile avatar 9d (Fig. 9, [0072]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to modify Lyle’s modification implementation to include the version identifiers teachings of Ronen. The rationale for combining in this manner is that as per a KSR “B” rationale, it would have been obvious since this would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., using version identifiers to keep track of avatar modifications as taught in Ronen) for another (i.e., the avatar modification teaching of Lyle) to obtain the predictable result of facilitating keeping track of avatar changes thereby enhancing the analytical capability of the system. This would be particularly reasonable for Lyle to implement, as each avatar iteration is maintained on the game server ([0050]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204 A1) (hereinafter Lyle) in view of Shriram et al. (US 2022/0230379 A1) (hereinafter Shriram) . As per claim 4 (and similarly the method of claim 12), Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the modification information includes information indicating magnitude of a difference between a component before modification of the avatar and a component after modification of the avatar. However, Shriram teaches an augmented reality (AR) application enables customization and manipulation of three dimensional (3D) avatars on a mobile client. The application provides a variety of options for modifying the physical appearance of an avatar, including base features such as skin tone and body shape. When a user adjusts these base features, application may make corresponding adjustments to part features (e.g., clothing items) that are displayed over the base features (abstract) . In particular, Shriram teaches the avatar customization application 130 enables customized avatar generation, animation, and cutscenes. For example, the user can select physical features to correspond with their avatar's body (e.g., weight, height, skin tone, hair color, eye color, scars, birthmarks, etc.) for display in the AR game (e.g., during gameplay or cutscenes). In some embodiments, the user can select from a continuous scale of colors or numbers to change the avatar's physical appearance. For example, the user selects form a continuous scale of number values corresponding to the width of the avatar's hips (Fig. 1, [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to modify Lyle’s modification implementation to include Shriram’s avatar customization techniques, as "this avatar customization application 130 enables optimized shading for reduced memory consumption, reduced processing resource consumption, and dynamic generation of special effects" (see Shriram, Fig. 1, [0032]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 14, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyle et al. (US 2007/0167204 A1) (hereinafter Lyle) in view of Meadows et al. (US 2023/0090253 A1) (hereinafter Meadows) . As per claim 6 (and similarly the method of claim 14), Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the modification information includes information indicating a modification time for each component of the avatar. However, Meadows teaches the administrative system, either automatically or manually, may identify the activity, behavior, change or other asset (avatar, object, architecture, function, or other system component) by UUID, visual selection, timestamp (a modification time), or other means. The change and editing system may then identify the target state (or set of characteristics) as a numeric comparison to current state. Finally, a recommendation is offered by system to administrator. ([0395]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to modify Lyle’s modification implementation to include Meadows specific modification timestamp teachings of Meadows. Furthermore, the Examiner understands that Lyle and Meadows both teach a comparable “base” device for modifying avatars and keeping track of these modifications, wherein Meadows further teaches the improvement of associating a timestamp to any avatar changes. Implementing the teachings of Meadows is applying a known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way, as per KSR Rationale C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expand the specific feature of Lyle of making modifications to avatar parts, to include the above timestamp modification feature of Meadows, since this expansion is applying a known technique of associating a timestamp to avatar changes, to improve a similar known technique of modifying avatars and keeping track of these modifications, in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable tracking result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. As per claim 21, Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to estimate the psychographic data by using a machine learning model trained in advance using, as training data, data in which modification information and known psychographic data are associated with each other. However, Meadows teaches machine learning implementations used to build avatars, in which vector sets are established and blended so that the hand-authored data influences the machine-authored data by gradual steps until a blended dataset, acceptable to the authoring artists, may be completed. The base truth vector set is established and prepared for training. ([0285-287]). User data collection, input and interaction with the virtual environment is leveraged. The administrative system provides real-time information on the use, operation, time spent, and behavioral data that is acquired by augmented reality and the app itself including behavior, choices, intended or evident preferences, and other. ML methods are applied for clustering, grouping, and predicting ([0319]). Meadows collects this data and behavioral characteristics and builds training data sets, and are stored and later used as ML training data ([0142], [0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to modify Lyle’s modification and preference estimation implementation to include the specific trained machine learning features of Meadows. The rationale for combining in this manner is that both Lyle and Meadows are analogous art focused on avatar modification systems. Furthermore, the Examiner understands that implementing the machine learning teachings of Meadows is applying a known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way, as per KSR Rationale C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The incorporation of Meadows’ machine learning teachings would yield the same predictable results achieved in Meadows, in that the avatar-related data can be integrated into machine learning models for improved identification, analysis, and retrieval (Meadows, [0417]). As per claim 23, Lyle discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Lyle further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: modify a component of the avatar by determining the component specified on a user terminal and acquiring a modification instruction for the component (abstract, see also Fig. 1-3, see also [0032], [0034], the user modifies or otherwise enhances their avatar character, [0040-41], psychological features derived to determine the physical or appearance characteristics that are desirable to the user, the physical appearance of the initial avatar changes to reflect the psychological desires of the player or user, [0044-45]). Lyle does not explicitly disclose determine a start time of modification operation by the user for the modification instruction and an end time of the modification operation. However, Meadows teaches using timestamped data to track when avatar modification behavior is done, and can be used to predict what behavior or changes may take place in the future ([0338-347], [0354]). In addition, the administrative system may be used to remotely orchestrate or otherwise control the appearance, behavior, actions, or other data of the avatar system with or without the owner's participation or knowledge. The Administrative system, either automatically or manually, identifies the asset (avatar, object, architecture, function, or other system component) by UUID, visual selection or other means. Change and editing system identifies the target state (or set of characteristics) as a numeric comparison to current state. Timespan for state change is determined by start time, end time and any other timestamps of increased or decreased change. Timespan and changes to be made are saved for use ( [0390]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to modify Lyle’s modification implementation to include the specific timestamped-related data in Meadows. The rationale for combining in this manner is that both Lyle and Meadows are analogous art focused on avatar modification systems. Furthermore, the Examiner understands that Lyle and Meadows both teach a comparable “base” device for modifying avatars and keeping track of these modifications, wherein Meadows further teaches the improvement of associating a timestamp to any avatar changes. Implementing the teachings of Meadows is applying a known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way, as per KSR Rationale C. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expand the specific feature of Lyle of making modifications to avatar parts, to include the above timestamp features of Meadows, since this expansion is applying a known technique of associating a timestamp to avatar changes, to improve a similar known technique of modifying avatars and keeping track of these modifications, in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable tracking result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, the applicant argues the following with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101: (a) Specifically, the claimed features of "acquire modification information being information related to modification of an avatar by performing image processing to compare the avatar at a first time point with the avatar at a second time point after the first time point" and "psychographic data indicating that the user prefers a feature determined from a component after the modification of the avatar; or psychographic data indicating that the user does not prefer a feature determined from a component before the modification of the avatar", are neither methods of organizing human activity nor concepts that can be practically performed mentally or by pen and paper; (Remarks, at 10) (b) The claimed features of claim 1 are directed to a computer-centric technical improvement, similar to guidelines in Example 2 of the "Abstract Idea Examples" from January 27, 2015 ("Abstract Idea Examples") and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. The inquiry in DDR Holdings was whether the claims "merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet" or whether "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Here, similar to DDR Holdings as, the claimed features are necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to provide a solution in the realm of avatar, by performing image processing to compare the avatar at a first time point with the avatar at a second time point after the first time point. Thus, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea but directed to patent-eligible subject matter.; (Remarks, at 10-11) (c) Applicant respectfully submits the claimed features provide an improvement to the conventional psychographic data acquisition technology by providing a method for obtaining a more accurate psychographic data (see pages 1 and 2 of the instant application). Thus, the claimed features provide an improvement to a technology of technical field.; (Remarks, at 12) and (d) In particular, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements "[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," has been found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. As discussed below, the cited references do not teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1. Thus, it is clear independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities. (Remarks, at 12). In response to these arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As per argument (a), the examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “image processing” and “estimate[ing] psychographic” features of the claims are so broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic memory and processor. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, argument (a) is not persuasive. As per argument (b), the examiner respectfully notes that the crux of the claimed subject matter is the abstract idea of estimating psychographic data about a user based on the how they have modified their avatar for the eventual purpose of targeting them with relevant advertising. While an avatar is understood to be a digital construct object that exists in a virtual world environment and requires the virtual world environment to be created and displayed (thereby making the avatar itself necessarily rooted in computer technology), contrary to applicant’s assertion their “solution” is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Page 1 of the instant specification makes clear the objective and solution of the claimed invention is to find the underlying preference context to why a user makes certain selections relating to their avatar. These selections are viewed as preferences which can be leveraged for implementing the abstract idea of advertising to the user. So unlike DDR Holdings , which actually solved a technical problem in a way that not only was the solution a technical solution, to which that solution changed the normal operation of URL functionality. The instant claim has no similarity to DDR Holdings. Therefore, argument (b) is not persuasive. As per argument (c), the examiner contends that this allegation at best amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The applicant essentially alleges that better data (i.e., “more accurate psychographic data”) is their technical improvement. However, better data is simply an improvement to the data (i.e., improvement to the abstract idea itself). The claimed subject matter fails to recite any technically improved way in which this data is being leveraged. The claimed invention simply takes data representing changes a user makes to their avatar, and then from that generically estimates psychographic data (i.e., what does the user like or not like as a preference based on their modifications). Such an implementation does not amount to a technical improvement. Therefore, argument (c) is not persuasive. As per argument (d), both the previous and newly updated 101 rejection details that any additional elements analyzed in Step 2A prong two are considered to be “apply it”, as they are generically recited computer-based elements which fails to integrate the judicial exception. That conclusion of “apply it” remains true in Step 2B. The only reconsideration necessary in Step 2B when it comes to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is when an additional element in Step 2A prong two is deemed insignificant extrasolution activity. No such conclusion was purported in the rejection; thus the issue of well-understood, routine and conventional activity has not even been triggered for consideration. Therefore, the examiner considers argument (d) as both irrelevant and non-persuasive. Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot as Applicant's arguments are directed toward the claims as amended . As such, the Examiner has addressed the amended claims in the rejection above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 WILL A BRANDENBURG whose telephone number is (571)270-5488. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:30am-5:00pm. 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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. /WILL A BRANDENBURG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 2 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 3 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 4 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 5 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 6 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 7 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 8 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 9 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 10 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 11 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 13 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 14 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 15 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 17 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 18 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 19 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 20 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 22 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 23 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 24 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 25 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 26 Art Unit: 3600 Application/Control Number: 18/504,702 Page 27 Art Unit: 3600
Prosecution Insights