Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, analyzed as representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are drawn to statutory categories of invention of a process and/or machine.
[Step 2A — Prong 1] Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps which can practically be performed by one or more humans through mental processes and mathematical concepts (i.e. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III). See underlined portions below.
Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs generated by an administrator, wherein each three-dimensional image-caption pair is assigned a plurality of traits to each of the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pair;
for each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair, scoring, by a computing system, each trait of the plurality of traits;
deploying, by the computing system, a personality assessment comprising the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs;
for each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair, receiving, by the computing system, response data from a test-taker, the response data comprising an indication of whether the test-taker relates to the customized three-dimensional image-caption pair; and
based on the response data, categorizing, by the computing system, the test-taker into a personality dimension or personality type.
As indicated above, the “receiving”, “scoring”, “deploying”, “receiving”, and “categorizing” limitations encompass, under broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that can practically be mental processes and mathematical concepts. For example, a teacher could merely gather information from a student through questions and answers after providing the images described, and use them to score and characterize the personality of the student. In other words, the underlined portions could have been done by a teacher using mental processes and mathematical concepts to mathematically characterize the personality of their student using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or the utilization of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” grouping(s) of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim encompasses an abstract idea.
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The claim fails to recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Moreover, “a computing system” is a generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). The additional claim limitations are NOT indicative of integration into a practical application as they add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the claim is directed to the abstract idea
[Step 2B] As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer/implement the abstract idea in a computer environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Specification demonstrates that the personality test is recited for its well- understood, routine, and conventional functionality (i.e., software/application), referring to the additional element in a manner that indicates that it is sufficiently well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy enablement (See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A)). Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified 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 and/or implements the use of a particular machine. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasoning. The additional limitations of “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors, causes a computing system to perform operations” and “a system comprising: a processor; and a memory having programming instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform operations” recite generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. Claims 8 and 15 fail to include additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept). Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are also not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and therefore recite the same abstract idea noted above. While the dependent claims have a narrower scope than the independent claims, the claims fail to recite additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Particularly, the additional limitations further define the insignificant extra-solution of evaluation of the mental processes and mathematical concepts and additional iterations on the existing abstract concepts. Furthermore, these additional limitations encompass the use of generic computing component (e.g., software/application), recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment, i.e., field of use. The dependent claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (See MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 20140337101 A1 to Spears et al. (hereinafter Spears) in view of US Publication No. 20020045154 A1 to Wood et al. (hereinafter Wood).
Concerning claim 1,
Spears discloses each three-dimensional image-caption pair is assigned a plurality of traits to each of the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pair (0028-0029, 0034, three-dimensional image pairs is not defined in the specification, nor a well-known term in the art. For the purposes of examination, three-dimensional image pairs are assumed to be images associated with a personality test under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI));
for each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair, scoring, by a computing system, each trait of the plurality of traits (0028-0029, 0042);
deploying, by the computing system, a personality assessment comprising the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs (0028-0029, 0042);
for each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair, receiving, by the computing system, response data from a test-taker, the response data comprising an indication of whether the test-taker relates to the customized three-dimensional image-caption pair (0028, 0032-0034); and
based on the response data, categorizing, by the computing system, the test-taker into a personality dimension or personality type (0036-0037, 0042).
Spears does not disclose receiving a plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs generated by an administrator.
Wood teaches receiving a plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs generated by an administrator (0042, 0170-0171).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image-based personality test described in Spears with the administration method of the image-based personality test described in Wood as the different administration methods for the personality test of Spears would result in greater security and feedback for the one providing the test.
Concerning claim 2,
Spears discloses a caption in an image-caption pair describes at least one of a trait, sentiment, or idea illustrated by an image in the image-caption pair (0028-0029, wherein the caption is considered to be equivalent to the personality traits metadata of the image).
Concerning claim 3,
Spears discloses scoring, by the computing system, each trait of the plurality of traits comprises: ranking each trait assigned to the customized three-dimensional image-caption pair based on an analysis of an image (0032-0034, 0042).
Concerning claim 4,
Spears discloses deploying, by the computing system, the personality assessment comprising the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs comprises: delivering the personality assessment to the test-taker through a third-party website via one or more application programming interfaces associated with the computing system (0042).
Concerning claim 5,
Spears discloses the response data comprises a binary response to each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair (0028, 0032-0034).
Concerning claim 6,
Spears discloses categorizing, by the computing system, the test-taker into the personality dimension or the personality type comprises: aggregating the traits and respective scores for the traits for each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair (0032-0034, 0042).
Concerning claims 8-13 and 15-19, see the rejection of claims 1-6.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 20140337101 A1 to Spears et al. in view of US Publication No. 20020045154 A1 to Wood et al. and further in view of US Publication No. 20210386344 A1 to Mobbs (hereinafter Mobbs).
Concerning claim 7,
Spears does not disclose prior to deploying the personality assessment, posting, by the computing system, the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs for testing to determine whether each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair accurately conveys an intent of the customized three-dimensional image-caption pair.
Mobbs teaches prior to deploying the personality assessment, posting, by the computing system, the plurality of customized three-dimensional image-caption pairs for testing to determine whether each customized three-dimensional image-caption pair accurately conveys an intent of the customized three-dimensional image-caption pair (0195, 0262-0263).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the testing of the personality test shown in Mobbs with the image-based personality test of Spears as testing of the provided examination content improves the reliability of the administered exam.
Concerning claims 14 and 20, see the rejection of claims 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715