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 .
This action is in response to the application and claims filed 3/12/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because Figures 1F and 1G include letters which do not measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see, e.g., some of the lowercase characters in element 100 in FIGs. 1F and 1G). See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3): Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Brief Description of the Drawings does not include a reference to and brief description of each of the drawings as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74. In particular, at paragraphs 2 ,11 and 46 in the “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS” and elsewhere, the specification recites “Figs. 1A-1L are diagrams”, “Figs. 1A-1L are diagrams of an example” and “Figs. 1A-1L are provided as an example”.
As set forth in 37 CFR 1.74, “[w]hen there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).” See MPEP § 608.01(f). Appropriate correction is required.
The 4th sentence of paragraph 78 recites “In some implementations, process 500 includes determining whether the input is a user input and a non-user input”. It is unclear how the input can be determined to be both “a user input and a non-user input.” As such, it appears that this sentence should read “In some implementations, process 500 includes determining whether the input is a user input [[and]] or a non-user input”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preambles of claims 18 and 19 both recite “wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to perform the one or more actions, cause the device to one or more of”. This recitation is grammatically incorrect and appears to be missing the word “perform” between “device to” and “one or more of”. If supported by applicant’s original specification, examiner suggests one way to address this objection would be to amend the preamble of this claim to recite “wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to perform the one or more actions, cause the device to perform one or more of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7, 12 and 15-20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite, using respective similar language “identifying … closest nodes to the positions” (see, line 8 of claim 1 and line 11 of claim 15). The term “closest nodes to the positions” in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “closest nodes to the positions” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification merely repeats the claim language in stating “The device may identify closest nodes to the positions, and may determine particular domain elements that correspond to the closest nodes.”, “identify closest nodes to the positions.” and “the device may identify closest nodes to the positions, as described above.” (see, e.g., paragraphs 9, 24 and 68-69) and provides general examples in paragraphs 25-26. Therefore, the specification fails to describe or define what is meant by this term. In particular, it is unclear what metrics or standards are used for ascertaining the requisite degree of distance, proximity, or closeness for the claimed “closest nodes to the positions”. As such, the specification does not provide a standard for determining the requisite degree of distance, proximity, or closeness (i.e., a radius or threshold of calculated distances between the “nodes” and “the positions”) for the claimed “closest nodes to the positions” in claims 1 and 15. For the purposes of determining patent eligibility and comparison with the prior art, the Examiner is interpreting “closest nodes to the positions” as any nodes of the previously-introduced “knowledge graph with nodes” that are neighboring or within a defined threshold distance, radius or proximity of the previously-introduced “positions of the input within the knowledge graph”. Appropriate correction is required.
Line 3 of claim 12 recites “determine whether the input is a user input and a non-user input”. This recitation is unclear. In particular, it is unclear how the input can be determined to be both “a user input and a non-user input.” For examination purposes, “determine whether the input is a user input and a non-user input” is being interpreted as “determine whether the input is a user input or a non-user input”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 and 16-20, which each depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 15, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite under the same rationale as claims 1 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding independent claim 1, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, corresponding to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitations recited in claim 1:
identifying … a domain associated with a user;
identifying … domain elements in the domain and converting the domain to a knowledge graph with nodes and edges;
predicting … positions of the input within the knowledge graph based on the one or more movements;
identifying … closest nodes to the positions1;
determining … particular domain elements that correspond to the closest nodes;
calculating … probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements; and
performing … one or more actions based on the probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements - as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to identify a domain and domain elements associated with a user based on observing domain elements/data, convert the domain into a knowledge graph, predict positions of observed/received input in the knowledge graph based on observed/received input movements, identify closest nodes to the predicted position, determine domain elements corresponding to the closest nodes and then performing actions based on probabilities that the input will traverse the identified domain elements combined with a mathematical concept - i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – to calculate probabilities that the input will traverse the identified domain elements). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, identifying/determining a domain and its elements based on observed data, converting the domain into a knowledge graph having nodes and edges, predicting positions of observed/received input in the graph based on observed/received input movements, identifying closest nodes to the predicted position and performing actions based on probabilities that the input will traverse the identified domain elements (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to identify domain elements, convert data into a knowledge graph, predict positions based on the received/observed input and movements and then perform actions based on probabilities - corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “domain elements in the domain” and sufficiently small set of “movements of an input associated with the domain”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Regarding the “knowledge graph” limitations, aside from it generally including “nodes and edges” no details of the knowledge graph are recited and the knowledge graph is recited at a high level of generality. Aside from repeating the claim language in paragraphs 9, 17, 21 and 24, and providing general examples in paragraphs 21, 24-26, 65 and 67, applicant’s specification does not define the “knowledge graph”. Thus, the claimed “knowledge graph”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be any knowledge graph including nodes/data values and edges, which could be constructed and updated by hand with pen and paper.
The claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations (BRIs), cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “a device” and “the device”) combined with a mathematical concept - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (e.g., “calculating … probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements”).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes combined with a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: performing the above-noted method steps by a device and by the device - The device is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a computer including the generically-recited device) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim also recites the additional element:
receiving, by the device, one or more movements of an input associated with the domain; - This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “receiving, by the device, one or more movements of an input associated with the domain” amounts to mere data gathering (i.e., receiving provided/transmitted input data) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving, transmitting and communicating data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitation of “receiving, by the device, one or more movements of an input associated with the domain” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “device”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim limitations wherein calculating the probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements comprises:
assigning respective counter values to the particular domain elements based on traversal by the input;
increasing a total value based on each of the counter values; and
dividing the counter values by the total value to calculate the probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements - as drafted, under their BRI, in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to assign counter values to the domain elements based on observed traversal by the received input combined with mathematical concepts - i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – to increase/increment a total value based on counter values/counts (addition) and then divide counts/counter values by a total value (division) to calculate probabilities that the input will traverse the domain elements).
The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass assigning counter values to domain elements based on observed traversal by the received input data (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to assign counter values to domain elements based on observing traversal by received/observed input data - corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “domain elements” and sufficiently small set of “the input”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes combined with mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. See the analysis of claim 1 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of wherein performing the one or more actions comprises one or more of:
displaying, to the user, an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; or
displaying, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements.
These are insignificant extra-solution activities that are not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “displaying, to the user, an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; or displaying, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements” amount to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
This is post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
These limitations do nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claim as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitations merely limit the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what performing the one or more actions includes - i.e., displaying to the user “an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; or … targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitations of “displaying, to the user, an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; or displaying, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting functions.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 1. See the analysis of claim 1 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of wherein performing the one or more actions comprises one or more of:
providing, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements; or
connecting the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements.
These are insignificant extra-solution activities that are not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “providing, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements; or connecting the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements” amount to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
This is post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
These limitations do nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claim as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitations merely limit the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what performing the one or more actions includes - i.e., “providing, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements; or connecting the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitations of “providing, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements; or connecting the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting functions.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim limitations wherein performing the one or more actions comprises one or more of:
determining that the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent the user from exiting the domain; or
authenticating the user based on one of the particular domain elements - as drafted, under their BRI, in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to determine if the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent/block the user from exiting the domain, or authenticate/validate the user based on an observed domain element.
The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining whether the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent the user from exiting the domain, or authenticating the user based on an observed domain element (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to determine if the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent/block the user from exiting the domain, or authenticate the user based on an observed domain element -corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “the particular domain elements”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a device, comprising: one or more processors, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitations recited in claim 8:
calculate, in real-time, a velocity and a direction of the input;
predict a subsequent user interaction based on the velocity and the direction; and
execute a responsive action based on predicting the subsequent user interaction - as drafted, under their BRI, in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to predict a user interaction based on a velocity and direction of observed/received input and then perform/execute an action based on the predicted user interaction combined with a mathematical concept - i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – to calculate a velocity and a direction of a received input). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, predicting a user interaction based on a velocity and direction of observed/received input and performing/executing an action based on the prediction (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to predict a user interaction based on a velocity and then perform/carry out an action based on the prediction - corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “the input”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
The claim limitations, under their BRIs, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “A device, comprising: one or more processors”) combined with a mathematical concept - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (e.g., “calculate, in real-time, a velocity and a direction of the input”).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes combined with mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
A device, comprising: one or more processors configured to: <perform the above-noted operations>. The device and its one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device having one or more processors) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim also recites the additional element:
detect an input indicative of a user interaction with a domain associated with the device; - This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “detect an input indicative of a user interaction with a domain associated with the device” amounts to mere data gathering (i.e., detecting provided/received input data indicating user interaction) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving, transmitting and communicating data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitation of “detect an input indicative of a user interaction with a domain associated with the device” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “device, comprising: one or more processors”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a device as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim limitation adjust the responsive action based on a type of the detected input- as drafted, under its BRI, in view of the specification, covers concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to adjust the responsive action based on an observed data type of the detected/received input data).
The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses adjusting a responsive action based on an observed type of the received input data (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to adjust the responsive action based on an observed data type of the detected input data - corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “the detected input”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: <perform the above-noted operation>. The one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device including the one or more processors) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a device as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 8. See the analysis of claim 8 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: generate a visual representation of the predicted subsequent user interaction; and provide the visual representation for display.
These are insignificant extra-solution activities that are not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “generate a visual representation of the predicted subsequent user interaction; and provide the visual representation for display” amount to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
This is post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim also recites the additional element of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: <perform the above-noted operations>. The one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device including the one or more processors) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitations of “generate a visual representation of the predicted subsequent user interaction; and provide the visual representation for display” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting functions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a device as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 8. See the analysis of claim 8 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of: provide an offer or assistance to the user in response to the predicted subsequent user interaction.
This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “provide an offer or assistance to the user in response to the predicted subsequent user interaction” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
This is post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim also recites the additional element of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: <perform the above-noted operation>. The one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device including the one or more processors) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “provide an offer or assistance to the user in response to the predicted subsequent user interaction” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting functions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a device as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim limitations determine whether the input is a user input and a non-user input2 based on the velocity and the direction of the input; and
authenticate the user based on determining that the input is a user input - as drafted, under their BRI, in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to determine if the received input is a user input or not based on an observed velocity and direction of the input, and to authenticate/validate the user based on determining that the observed input is user input.
The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining whether the is user input or not based on observing the velocity and direction of the input, and authenticating the user based on determining that the observed input is user input (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to determine if the received input is a user input, and to authenticate/validate the user based on the determination that the observed input is user input - corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “the input”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: <perform the above-noted operation>. The one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device including the one or more processors) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a device as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim limitation modify the responsive action based on historical user interaction data - as drafted, under its BRI, in view of the specification, covers concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to modify/change/alter the responsive action based on observed historical user interaction data).
The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses modifying/changing the responsive action based on observed historical user interaction data (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to modify the responsive action based on observed historical user interaction data - corresponding to a mental process which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “historical user interaction data”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
In particular, the claim recites the additional element of: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: <perform the above-noted operation>. The one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device including the one or more processors) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “one or more processors”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 15, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, corresponding to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The limitations recited in claim 15:
identify a domain associated with a user;
identify domain elements in the domain and convert the domain to a knowledge graph with nodes and edges;
predict positions of the input within the knowledge graph based on the one or more movements;
identify closest nodes to the positions3;
determine particular domain elements that correspond to the closest nodes;
assign respective counter values to the particular domain elements based on traversal by the input;
increase a total value based on each of the counter values;
divide the counter values by the total value to calculate probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements; and
perform one or more actions based on the probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements - as drafted, under their BRI, in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to identify a domain and domain elements associated with a user based on observing domain elements/data, convert the domain into a knowledge graph, predict positions of observed/received input in the knowledge graph based on observed/received input movements, identify closest nodes to the predicted position, determine domain elements corresponding to the closest nodes, assign counter values to the domain elements based on observed traversal by the received input and then performing actions based on probabilities that the input will traverse the identified domain elements combined with mathematical concepts - i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – to increase/increment a total value based on counter values/counts (addition) and then divide counts/counter values by a total value (division) to calculate probabilities that the input will traverse the domain elements). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, identifying/determining a domain and its elements based on observed data, converting the domain into a knowledge graph having nodes and edges, predicting positions of observed/received input in the graph based on observed/received input movements, identifying closest nodes to the predicted position, assigning counter values to the domain elements based on observed traversal by the received input and performing actions based on probabilities that the input will traverse the identified domain elements (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to identify domain elements, convert data into a knowledge graph, predict positions based on the received/observed input and movements and then perform actions based on probabilities - corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “domain elements in the domain” and sufficiently small set of “movements of an input associated with the domain”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Regarding the “knowledge graph” limitations, aside from it generally including “nodes and edges” no details of the knowledge graph are recited and the knowledge graph is recited at a high level of generality. Aside from repeating the claim language in paragraphs 9, 17, 21 and 24, and providing general examples in paragraphs 21, 24-26, 65 and 67, applicant’s specification does not define the “knowledge graph”. Thus, the claimed “knowledge graph”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be any knowledge graph including nodes/data values and edges, which could be constructed and updated by hand with pen and paper.
The claim limitations, under their BRIs, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions”, “a device” and “the device”) combined with mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (e.g., “increase a total value based on each of the counter values; divide the counter values by the total value to calculate probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain element”).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes combined with mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: <perform the above-noted operations>. The device, computer-readable medium and one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., the generically-recited device having one or more processors and a computer-readable medium storing executable instructions) and amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim also recites the additional element:
receive one or more movements of an input associated with the domain; - This is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concepts specified in this claim. That is, “receive one or more movements of an input associated with the domain” amounts to mere data gathering (i.e., receiving provided/transmitted input data) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving, transmitting and communicating data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitation of “receive one or more movements of an input associated with the domain” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea electronically , or to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (i.e., with the recited “device” including “one or more processors” and a “computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions” executable by the device’s processors) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer cannot provide significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements of the claim are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 1 and 15 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims both recite wherein each of the nodes of the knowledge graph corresponds to one of the domain elements, and each of the edges of the knowledge graph corresponds to a distance between nodes joined by each of the edges.
This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitation merely limits the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what the nodes and edges of the knowledge graph correspond to - i.e., “one of the domain elements, and … a distance between nodes joined by each of the edges.”
Regarding the “knowledge graph” limitations, aside from it generally including nodes that correspond “to one of the domain elements” and edges that correspond “to a distance between nodes joined by each of the edges”, no details of the knowledge graph are recited and the knowledge graph is recited at a high level of generality. Aside from repeating the claim language in paragraphs 9, 17, 21 and 24, and providing general examples in paragraphs 21, 24-26, 65 and 67, applicant’s specification does not define the “knowledge graph”. Thus, the claimed “knowledge graph”, under the BRI, in view of the specification, could be any knowledge graph including nodes/data values corresponding to domain elements and edges corresponding to a distance between nodes joined by each of the edges, which could be constructed and updated by hand with pen and paper.
Dependent claims 3 and 16, when analyzed as a whole, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fails to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitation added by these claims covers a mental process of evaluation, judgement, or opinion to generate a knowledge graph based on observing received input and domain elements. This can be performed as a mental process with the aid of pen and paper.
Thus, this limitation does nothing to alter the analysis of claims 1 and 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a device as depending from claim 8, and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 1 and 15 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 13 and 17 recite the same abstract ideas as in claims 8 and 15, respectively. See the analysis of claims 8 and 15 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims both recite the additional elements wherein the domain includes one of a video display, a real-world environment, a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment.
This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitation can be considered as “generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 13 and 17, when analyzed as a whole, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fails to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, this limitation does nothing to alter the analysis of claims 8 and 15.
Accordingly, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the limitation wherein the domain includes one of a video display, a real-world environment, a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of these dependent claims is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 recites the same abstract ideas as in claim 15. See the analysis of claim 15 above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of one or more of:
display, to the user, an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements;
display, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements; or
provide, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements.
These are insignificant extra-solution activities that are not integrated into the claim as a whole and do not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “display, to the user, an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; display, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements; or provide, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements” amount to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
This is post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claim also recites the additional element of: wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to perform the one or more actions, cause the device to [sic – perform] one or more of: <the above-noted operations>. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with 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. The device and instructions are recited at a high-level of generality with no details of device or instructions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These limitations do nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claim as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitations merely limit the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what performing the one or more actions includes - i.e., displaying or providing to the user “an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; … targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements; or … assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitations of “display, to the user, an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements; display, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements; or provide, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting functions.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim limitations one or more of: …
determine that the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent the user from exiting the domain; or
authenticate the user based on one of the particular domain elements – as drafted, under their BRI, in view of the specification, cover concepts performed in the human mind (evaluation, judgement, or opinion to determine if the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent/block the user from exiting the domain, or authenticate/validate the user based on an observed domain element.
The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, inter alia, determining whether the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent the user from exiting the domain, or authenticating the user based on an observed domain element (can be performed as mental processes, evaluation/judgement/opinion to determine if the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent/block the user from exiting the domain, or authenticate the user based on an observed domain element -corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
Given a sufficiently small set of “the particular domain elements”, nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element of one or more of:
connect the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements - this is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in this claim. That is, “connect the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements” amounts to necessary data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
This is post-solution activity that is not integrated into the claim as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes specified in this claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claim as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitation merely limits the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what performing the one or more actions includes - i.e., “connect[ing] the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements.”
The claim also recites the additional element of: wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to perform the one or more actions, cause the device to [sic – perform] one or more of: <the above-noted operations>. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with 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. The device and instructions are recited at a high-level of generality with no details of device or instructions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
According to MPEP 2106.05(d) Subsection II, "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Therefore, recitation of “connect the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements” (i.e., forwarding and outputting information) are well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and outputting functions.
This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium as depending from claim 15, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claims 1 and 15 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 7 and 20 recite the same abstract ideas as in claims 1 and 15, respectively. See the analysis of claims 1 and 15 above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims both recite the additional elements wherein the input is associated with one of a mouse cursor, a facial cursor, a hand cursor, or a body movement of the user.
This limitation does nothing to alter the fundamental nature of the claims as a mental process combined with a mathematical concept. This is because the additional limitation merely limits the invention to a narrower abstract idea by further narrowing what the received input is associated with or corresponds to - i.e., “one of a mouse cursor, a facial cursor, a hand cursor, or a body movement of the user.”
The additional limitation added by these claims is an insignificant extra-solution activity that is not integrated into the claims as a whole and does not add a meaningful limitation to the above-noted mental processes and mathematical concept specified in these claims. That is, “the input is associated with one of a mouse cursor, a facial cursor, a hand cursor, or a body movement of the user” amounts to mere data gathering (i.e., receiving provided/transmitted input data) (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 7 and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation fails to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, this limitation does nothing to alter the analysis of claims 1 and 15.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claims are subject-matter ineligible.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Receiving, transmitting and communicating data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitation of receiving an input “wherein the input is associated with one of a mouse cursor, a facial cursor, a hand cursor, or a body movement of the user” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0374130 A1, hereinafter “Pu”).
With respect to independent claim 8, Pu discloses the invention as claimed including a device comprising one or more processors configured (see, e.g., paragraphs 86 and 88, “the devices 110, 120, and 130 may be implemented as the computer system 800” and “computer system 800 performs specific operations by the processor 814 and other components by executing one or more sequences of instructions contained in the system memory component 810. For example, the processor 814 can perform the cross-domain named entity recognition functionalities described herein.”) to:
detect an input indicative of a user interaction with a domain associated with the device (see, e.g., paragraphs 99, “process the user input on the rendering device 137, process the user input on the companion device 138” [i.e., detect and process user input indicative of user interaction with the device], 107, “perform domain classification/selection 334 on user input based on the features resulted from the featurization 332 to classify the user input into predefined domains” [i.e., detect user input indicative of user interaction with a domain associated with the device/user device]);
calculate, in real-time, a velocity and a direction of the input (see, e.g., paragraphs 119, “Context tracking may comprise aggregating real-time stream of events into a unified user state.”, 136, “the user input may comprise non-speech input. The non-speech input may be received at the context engine 220 for determining events and context”, 180-181, “Location service 1620a may provide velocity to the activity context engine”, “movement contexts corresponding to movement activities may be characterized by a user's moving speed, from low to high. … the inference may require movement histories and/or multimodal input to build confidence. Another example category may be "walking" (e.g., walking upstairs, walking on the street, etc.). Another example category may be "running" (e.g., jogging, sprinting, etc.) Another example category may be "in moving vehicle"” 193, “This approach may be applied to the activity and environment contexts in a real-time, online setting” and 209, “Features used to calculate the vector may be based on information obtained from edge detection, … edge direction, changing intensity … motion detection” [i.e., calculate in real-time, a velocity/speed and direction of the user input]);
predict a subsequent user interaction based on the velocity and the direction (see, e.g., paragraphs 58, “the assistant system 140 may be activated for subsequent interaction with the user.”, 174, “the context engine 220 may use machine-learning microservices that analyze sensor signals to provide context prediction” and 188, Table 6, showing user context inferences including “IMU [inertial measurement unit] for motion … IMU may show motion and audio prediction may change … motion prediction (e.g., fast) and audio prediction … action/motion prediction … and audio prediction” [i.e., predict a subsequent user interaction – action/motion/audio conversation based on the context – including user’s motion/velocity/speed and direction]); and
execute a responsive action based on predicting the subsequent user interaction (see, e.g., paragraphs 58, “the assistant system 140 may be activated for subsequent interaction with the user.” and 107, “classifier 336a may be based on a machine-learning model that may take the domain classification/selection results as input and calculate a probability of the input being associated with a particular predefined meta-intent. The NLU module 210 may then use a meta slot tagger 338a to annotate one or more meta slots for the classification result from the meta-intent classifier 336a” [i.e., perform an annotation action based on the probability/prediction]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Pu discloses the device of claim 8.
Pu further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: adjust the responsive action based on a type of the detected input (see, e.g., paragraphs 57, “the user may interact with the assistant system 140 by providing user input … via various modalities (e.g., audio, voice, text, vision, image, video, gesture, motion, activity, location, orientation). … Based on the user input, the assistant system 140 may generate responses. … The assistant application 136 may then present the responses to the user at the client system 130 via various modalities (e.g., audio, text, image, and video). … the user may interact with the assistant system 140 by providing a user input (e.g., a verbal request for information). … The assistant system 140 may accordingly analyze the user input, generate a response based on the analysis of the user input (e.g., vehicle traffic information … and communicate the generated response … assistant application 136 may then present the generated response to the user in any suitable manner (e.g., displaying a text-based push notification and/or image(s) illustrating a local map of nearby vehicle traffic on a display”, 98, “generate a response … determine how to render the output in a way that is suitable for the client system 130. … for a VR headset or AR smart glasses … determine to render the output using a visual-based modality (e.g., an image or a video clip) that may be displayed via the VR headset or AR smart glasses. … the response may be rendered as audio signals that may be played by the user via a VR headset or AR smart glasses. … the response may be rendered as augmented-reality data for enhancing user experience.” and 171, “the assistant system may display its response on the edge of the field of view … assistant system 140 may automatically adjust its placement … to avoid obfuscating the user's view” [i.e., adjust the responsive action/response based on a type/modality of the user input]).
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, Pu discloses the device of claim 8.
Pu further discloses , wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a visual representation of the predicted subsequent user interaction (see, e.g., paragraphs 57, “The assistant application 136 may then present the responses to the user … via various modalities (e.g., … image, and video)”, 98, “for a VR headset or AR smart glasses, the render output module 232 may determine to render the output using a visual-based modality (e.g., an image or a video clip) that may be displayed via the VR headset or AR smart glasses”, 188, Table 6, showing user context inferences including “IMU [inertial measurement unit] … IMU may show motion and audio prediction may change … motion prediction (e.g., fast) and … action/motion prediction” and 195, “the AR system 500 may use videos with synchronized IMU and vision streams” [i.e., generate video/image visual representation of the predicted subsequent user interaction – action/motion based on the context]); and
provide the visual representation for display (see, e.g., paragraphs 153, “AR system 500 may render, for one or more displays of an augmented-reality (AR) rendering device of the AR system 500 associated with a first user, a first output image” and 199, “AR system 500 may render, for one or more displays of an augmented-reality (AR) display device of the AR system 500 associated with a first user, a first output image … the AR system 500 may render, for the one or more displays of the AR display device, a second output image” [i.e., provide the visual representation for display]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Pu discloses the device of claim 8.
Pu further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide an offer or assistance to the user in response to the predicted subsequent user interaction (see, e.g., paragraphs 65, “events or calendar entries in which a user might be interested, computer-based applications that a user may use, transactions that allow users to buy or sell items via the service, interactions with advertisements that a user may perform”, 70, “Advertisement-pricing modules may combine social information, the current time, location information, or other suitable information to provide relevant advertisements, in the form of notifications, to a user.” [i.e., provide an offer/advertisement to the user], 73, “the assistant system 140 processes a user input and provides assistance to the user”, 81-82, “assistant system 140) The ASR module 208b may allow a user to dictate and have speech transcribed as written text, have a document synthesized as an audio stream, or issue commands” [i.e., provide assistance to the user] and 109, “domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the entities by categorizing the slots and meta slots into different domains. As an example … in response to the input of an inquiry of the advantages of a particular brand of electric car, … the domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the referenced brand of electric car” [i.e., providing/displaying an advertisement/offer or assistance to the user in response to the predicted user interaction]).
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Pu discloses the device of claim 8.
Pu further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the input is a user input and a non-user input4 based on the velocity and the direction of the input (see, e.g., paragraphs 60, “the assistant system 140 may perform a keyword verification on the detected wake-word to verify whether the user intended to activate and receive assistance from the assistant system 140”, 71, “assistant system 140 may enable the user to interact with the assistant system 140 via user inputs of various modalities (e.g., audio, voice, text, vision, image, video, gesture, motion, activity, location, orientation) in stateful and multi-tum conversations … User inputs provided by a user may be associated with particular assistant-related tasks, and may include, for example, user requests (e.g., verbal requests for information or performance of an action)”, 133, “assistant … may comprise … recognizing user inputs,” and 182, “activity context engine may … differentiate between a presentation, a phone call, and a conversation with nearby people … With audio-based models, the activity context engine may tell whether the user is facing someone who is talking or whether the user is talking.” [i.e., determine/differentiate/recognize whether input is a user audio input/user is talking or not]); and
authenticate the user based on determining that the input is a user input (see, e.g., paragraph 228, “assistant system 140 may have functionalities that may use, as inputs, personal or biometric information of a user for user-authentication … user may provide personal or biometric information to the … assistant system 140. The user's privacy settings may specify that such information may be used only for particular processes, such as authentication … provide a functionality for a user to provide a reference image (e.g., a facial profile, a retinal scan) … network may compare the reference image against a later-received image input (e.g., to authenticate the user” [i.e., authenticating the user based on the input being a user input]).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, Pu discloses the device of claim 8.
Pu further discloses wherein the domain includes one of a video display, a real-world environment, a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment (see, e.g., paragraphs 98, “generate a response … determine how to render the output in a way that is suitable for the client system 130. … for a VR headset or AR smart glasses … determine to render the output using a visual-based modality (e.g., an image or a video clip) that may be displayed via the VR headset or AR smart glasses. … the response may be rendered as audio signals that may be played by the user via a VR headset or AR smart glasses. … the response may be rendered as augmented-reality data for enhancing user experience.” , 149, “presentation to a user, which may include, e.g., a virtual reality (VR), an augmented reality (AR), a mixed reality (MR), a hybrid reality, or some
combination and/or derivatives thereof” and 153, “The AR system 500 may detect a change in a context of the first user with respect to a real-world environment” [i.e., domain includes a video display, a real-world environment, a virtual reality/VR environment, an augmented reality/AR environment, and a mixed reality/MR environment]).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, Pu discloses the device of claim 8.
Pu further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: modify the responsive action based on historical user interaction data (see, e.g., paragraph 104, “reasoning may enable the assistant system 140 to, for example, pick up previous conversation threads at any point in the future, synthesize all signals to understand micro and personalized context, learn interaction patterns and preferences from users' historical behavior and accurately suggest interactions that they may value, generate highly predictive proactive suggestions” [i.e., modify the response/suggested interaction based on historical user behavior/user interaction data]).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pu in view of Gelli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0382984 A1, hereinafter “Gelli”).
With respect to claim 1, Pu discloses the invention as claimed including a method (see, e.g., paragraph 12, “a method, a storage medium, a system and a computer program product”), comprising:
identifying, by a device, a domain associated with a user (see, e.g., paragraphs 99, “process the user input on the rendering device 137, process the user input on the companion device 138, or process the user request on the remote server.” [i.e., method steps performed by a device] and 107-108, “perform domain classification/selection 334 on user input based on the features resulted from the featurization 332 to classify the user input into predefined domains”, “module 210 may identify one or more of a domain, an intent, or a slot from the user input in a personalized and context-aware manner.” [i.e., select/identify a domain associated with a user]);
identifying, by the device, domain elements in the domain and converting the domain to a knowledge graph with nodes and edges (see, e.g., paragraphs 108, “module 210 may additionally extract information from … a knowledge graph, or a concept graph, and may retrieve a user's profile … module 210 may identify one or more of a domain, an intent, or a slot from the user input in a personalized and context-aware manner”, 109-110, “domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the entities by categorizing the slots and meta slots into different domains.”, “entities may be resolved based on knowledge 350 about the world and the user. The assistant system 140 may extract ontology data from the graphs 352 … the graphs 352 may comprise … a knowledge graph” and 200, “graph 2300 may include multiple nodes-which may include multiple user nodes 2302 or multiple concept nodes 2304-and multiple edges 2306 connecting the nodes” [i.e., identify/resolve domain entities/elements and convert the domain into a knowledge graph with nodes and edges]);
receiving, by the device, one or more movements of an input associated with the domain (see, e.g., paragraph 71, “user interactions with the assistant application 136 associated with the assistant system 140 (e.g., selection of UI elements via touch or gesture), or any other type of suitable user input that may be detected and understood by the assistant system 140 (e.g., user movements detected by the client device 130 of the user)”);
predicting, by the device, positions of the input within the knowledge graph based on the one or more movements (see, e.g., paragraphs 169, “the assistant system 140 may use contexts to intelligently adapt its responses and route commands to open augments or positions itself in a user's environment”, 171, “the assistant system 140 may adjust it's positioning to be pinned nearby that augment facing the user.”, 174, “To infer the contextual information, the context engine 220 may use machine-learning microservices that analyze sensor signals to provide context predictions”, 188 Table 6, “motion prediction” and 199, “determine the context of the first user based on one or more of the one or more sensor signals, a user profile of the first user, or a knowledge graph, wherein the context of the first user is based on … a location associated with the first user” [i.e., inferring/predicting user context and user input positions/locations in the knowledge graph based on the movements]); …
calculating, by the device, probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraph 107, “classifier 336a may be based on a machine-learning model that may take the domain classification/selection results as input and calculate a probability of the input being associated with a particular predefined meta-intent … calculate probabilities of the user input being associated with different predefined intents based on a vector comparison between the vector representing the user input and the vectors representing different predefined intents” [i.e., calculate probabilities that the input will traverse/be associated with particular intents and domain classification/selection results – domain elements]); and
performing, by the device, one or more actions based on the probabilities that the input will traverse the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraph 107, “classifier 336a may be based on a machine-learning model that may take the domain classification/selection results as input and calculate a probability of the input being associated with a particular predefined meta-intent. The NLU module 210 may then use a meta slot tagger 338a to annotate one or more meta slots for the classification result from the meta-intent classifier 336a” [i.e., perform an annotation action based on the probabilities]).
Although Pu substantially discloses the claimed invention, and Pu discloses “a user input may comprise "find me the nearest grocery store and direct me there". Based on coreference, the entity resolution module 212 may interpret "there" as "the nearest grocery store".” and “when the user gets close to the kitchen counter and looks at it, the UI of the assistant system 140 may snap to the countertop to provide assistance quickly to the user” (see, e.g., paragraphs 112 and 152), Pu is not relied on to explicitly disclose identifying, by the device, closest nodes to the positions and determining, by the device, particular domain elements that correspond to the closest nodes.
In the same field, analogous art Gelli teaches identifying, by the device, closest nodes to the positions5 (see, e.g., paragraph 60, “identify entity nodes representing entities associated with the source domain and/or the target domain … analysis module 406 may then propagate one level in the domain ontology graph from the identified entity nodes to retrieve all of the neighboring nodes of the identified entity nodes. The ontology analysis module 406 may then include the identified entity nodes, all of the retrieved neighboring nodes” [i.e., identify particular domain entities/elements corresponding to closest/neighboring nodes]) and
determining, by the device, particular domain elements that correspond to the closest nodes (see, e.g., paragraphs 60-61, “include the identified entity nodes, all of the retrieved neighboring nodes, and the domain nodes representing the source domain and the target domain in the sub-graph” and “the ontology analysis module 406 may include a graph neural network (e.g., a recurrent graph convolutional network) for capturing patterns observable in the local neighborhoods between the domain nodes (e.g., the domain nodes 302 and 304) representing the source domain and the target domain … output a set of entity vectors 438, including an entity vector for each entity node within the sub-graph 434. The set of entity vectors 438 represent relationships between the entities” [i.e., determine particular domain entities/elements corresponding to closest/nearest nodes in the local neighborhood]).
Pu and Gelli are analogous art because they are both directed to techniques and systems for using knowledge graphs, graph neural networks and machine learning models to perform machine learning tasks (see, e.g., Pu, paragraphs 85-87, 90 and 106-107, and Gelli, paragraphs 46-47 and 60-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pu to incorporate the teachings of Gelli to provide systems and methods “for generating and using a machine learning model configured to perform cross-domain named entity recognition.” wherein “Based on derived relationships between entities associated with the source domain and entities associated with the target domain, the machine learning model is configured to transfer knowledge associated with the source domain to the target domain”, where in order “to determine what nodes are included in the sub-graph 434, the ontology analysis module 406 may identify entity nodes representing entities associated with the source domain and/or the target domain. The ontology analysis module 406 may then propagate one level in the domain ontology graph from the identified entity nodes to retrieve all of the neighboring nodes of the identified entity nodes.” and “the ontology analysis module 406 may output a set of entity vectors 438, including an entity vector for each entity node within the sub-graph 434.” (See, e.g., Gelli, Abstract and paragraphs 60-61). Doing so would have allowed Pu to use Gelli’s system with its “ontology analysis module 406 [which] may then include the identified entity nodes, all of the retrieved neighboring nodes, and the domain nodes representing the source domain and the target domain in the sub-graph … such that the NER model 400 may use the sub-graph 434 without regenerating the sub-graph 434 in each iteration of the training process.” and “such that the NER model 400 can reuse the entity vectors 438 in each iteration of the training process (and subsequent process) without regenerating the entity vectors”, as suggested by Gelli (See, e.g., Gelli, paragraphs 60-61).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Pu in view of Gelli teaches the method of claim 1.
Pu further discloses wherein each of the nodes of the knowledge graph corresponds to one of the domain elements, and each of the edges of the knowledge graph corresponds to a distance between nodes joined by each of the edges (see, e.g., FIG. 23 – depicting a knowledge graph 2300 with nodes 2302, 2302, 2304 … corresponding to domain entities/elements and edges 2306 joining/connecting the nodes and paragraphs 64, “graph may include multiple nodes-which may include multiple user nodes ( each corresponding to a particular user) or multiple concept nodes (each corresponding to a particular concept)-and multiple edges connecting the nodes”, 110, “ontology data from the graphs 352. As an example and not by way of limitation, the graphs 352 may comprise … a knowledge graph … ontology data may also comprise information of how the slots/meta-slots may be grouped, related within a hierarchy where the higher level comprises the domain, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. For example, the knowledge graph may comprise a plurality of entities. Each entity may comprise a single record associated with one or more attribute values.” and 205, “nodes in the social graph 2300 may be connected to each other by one or more edges… The degree of separation between two objects represented by two nodes, respectively, is a count of edges in a shortest path connecting the two nodes … User "C" and user "A" have a degree of separation of two because the shortest path connecting their corresponding nodes (i.e., the first path) includes two edges” [i.e., each knowledge graph node corresponds to a domain element and edges of the graph correspond to a distance/count of edges between nodes joined/connected by the edges]).
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Pu in view of Gelli teaches the method of claim 1.
Pu further discloses wherein performing the one or more actions comprises one or more of:
displaying, to the user (see, e.g., paragraph 9, “system may render, for one or more displays of an augmented-reality (AR) display device of the AR system associated with a first user, a first output image comprising one or more AR objects”), an offer associated with one of the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraphs 65, “events or calendar entries in which a user might be interested, computer-based applications that a user may use, transactions that allow users to buy or sell items via the service, interactions with advertisements that a user may perform”, 70, “Advertisement-pricing modules may combine social information, the current time, location information, or other suitable information to provide relevant advertisements, in the form of notifications, to a user.” and 109, “domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the entities by categorizing the slots and meta slots into different domains. As an example … in response to the input of an inquiry of the advantages of a particular brand of electric car, … the domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the referenced brand of electric car” [i.e., providing/displaying to the user an advertisement/offer associated with one of the domain entities/elements]); or
displaying, to the user, targeted content associated with one of the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraphs 70, “advertisement-targeting module, module, user-interface module”, 95, “delivery system 230a/b may broadcast to all online devices that belong to one user. As another example and not by way of limitation, the delivery system 230a/b may deliver events to target-specific devices.” and 109, “domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the entities … in response to the input of an inquiry of the advantages of a particular brand of electric car, … domain entity resolution 340 may resolve the referenced brand of electric car” [i.e., displaying targeted content associated with a domain entity/element to the user]).
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, Pu in view of Gelli teaches the method of claim 1.
Pu further discloses wherein performing the one or more actions comprises one or more of:
providing, to the user, assistance associated with one of the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraphs 60, “the server associated with the assistant system 140 may perform a keyword verification on the detected wake-word to verify whether the user intended to activate and receive assistance from the assistant system 140.”, 73, “the assistant system 140 processes a user input and provides assistance to the user” and 81-82, “assistant system 140) The ASR module 208b may allow a user to dictate and have speech transcribed as written text, have a document synthesized as an audio stream, or issue commands” and “the output of the ASR module 208b … a domain may be an output” [i.e., providing assistance associated with the domain entity/element to the user]); or
connecting the user with a customer service agent based on one of the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraphs 68 “agents to provide … services.” and 72, “The assistant system 140 may resolve entities associated with the user input … assistant system 140 may interact with different agents to obtain information or services that are associated with the resolved entities. [i.e., connect user with an agent providing information and services to the user based on the domain entities/elements]).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Pu in view of Gelli teaches the method of claim 1.
Pu further discloses wherein performing the one or more actions comprises one or more of:
determining that the user will exit the domain and attempting to prevent the user from exiting the domain; or
authenticating the user based on one of the particular domain elements (see, e.g., paragraph 228, “assistant system 140 may have functionalities that may use, as inputs, personal or biometric information of a user for user-authentication … user may provide personal or biometric information to the … assistant system 140. The user's privacy settings may specify that such information may be used only for particular processes, such as authentication … provide a functionality for a user to provide a reference image (e.g., a facial profile, a retinal scan) … network may compare the reference image against a later-received image input (e.g., to authenticate the user” [i.e., authenticating the user based on one of the domain entities/elements]).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Pu in view of Gelli teaches the method of claim 1.
Pu further discloses wherein the input is associated with one of a mouse cursor, a facial cursor, a hand cursor, or a body movement of the user (see, e.g., paragraphs 71, “user interactions with the assistant application 136 associated with the assistant system 140 (e.g., selection of UI elements via touch or gesture), or any other type of suitable user input that may be detected and understood by the assistant system 140 (e.g., user movements detected by the client device 130 of the user).” and 78, “the user input may comprise non-speech data … the non-speech data may comprise locations, visuals, touch, gestures, world updates … contextual information, information related to people, activity data, and/or any other suitable type of non-speech data. The non-speech data may further comprise sensory data received by client system 130 sensors (e.g., microphone, camera) … non-speech data may be inertial data captured by AR glasses or a VR headset, and which may be data associated with linear and angular motions (e.g., measurements associated with a user's body movements).” [i.e., input is associated with a hand cursor/touch, facial cursor/gesture or user body movement/user movements]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references listed on form PTO-892 are all generally related to techniques, methods and systems for using knowledge graphs and knowledge graph neural networks to perform machine learning tasks such as making inferences and predictions.
For example, non-patent literature Gangadharan et al. ("From Data to Decisions: The Transformational Power of Machine Learning in Business Recommendations" arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08109v1 (Feb 2024), hereinafter “Gangadharan”) discloses “Recommendation Engines (RE), driven by advanced algorithms and data analytics, is explored across various domains, showcasing their significant impact on user experience and decision-making processes. These engines not only streamline information discovery and enhance collaboration but also accelerate knowledge acquisition” where “the proposed system benefited from feature selection methodologies combined with ML techniques such as … Random Forest (RF), Instance-based k-Nearest Neighbor” and “Model-based collaborative filtering is an approach where a predictive model is created to make recommendations based on user-item interactions. This method involves the use of ML algorithms and techniques to learn patterns and relationships from the available data. … user-based k-nearest neighbors … are common techniques employed in model-based collaborative filtering (see, Abstract and pages 5 and 7-8).
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY K BALDWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/RANDALL K. BALDWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 As indicated in the section 112(b) rejection of this claim above, “identifying … closest nodes to the positions” has been interpreted as any nodes of the previously-introduced “knowledge graph with nodes” that are neighboring or within a defined threshold distance, radius or proximity of the previously-introduced “positions of the input within the knowledge graph”
2 As indicated above in the section 112(b) rejection of this claim, “determine whether the input is a user input and a non-user input” has been interpreted as “determine whether the input is a user input or a non-user input”.
3 As indicated in the section 112(b) rejection of this claim above, “identifying closest nodes to the positions” has been interpreted as any nodes of the previously-introduced “knowledge graph with nodes” that are neighboring or within a defined threshold distance, radius or proximity of the previously-introduced “positions of the input within the knowledge graph”
4 As indicated above in the section 112(b) rejection of this claim, “determine whether the input is a user input and a non-user input” has been interpreted as “determine whether the input is a user input or a non-user input”.
5 As indicated in the section 112(b) rejection of this claim above, “identifying … closest nodes to the positions” has been interpreted as any nodes of the previously-introduced “knowledge graph with nodes” that are neighboring or within a defined threshold distance, radius or proximity of the previously-introduced “positions of the input within the knowledge graph”
Prosecution Insights