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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a responsive to the application filed on 04/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are respectively drawn to a system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, hence each falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the following, or analogous, limitations “initiating…an interaction between a…human companion and a user in response to an input from the user; deriving…a connection point from the interaction between the…human companion and the user to build a relationship with the user; preparing…a first response to the input from the user incorporating the connection point; outputting…the first response to the user; and incorporating…a set of feedback received from the user to customize the…human companion to increase a first level of intelligence and a second level of adaptability of the…human companion”. These limitations, as claimed, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be evaluated in a human mind, except for the recitation of generic computer components (using artificial intelligence/machine learning, a computer including one or more microprocessors, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) (Step 2A). Other than reciting “one or more computer readable storage media”, “one or more computer processors”, and “digital” to perform the exceptions, nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, a human expert can:
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper initiating…an interaction between a…human companion and a user in response to an input from the user (e.g. by thinking of/writing out a remembered message from a friend),
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper deriving…a connection point from the interaction between the…human companion and the user to build a relationship with the user (e.g. by thinking of/writing out that the remembered message was a happy tone),
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper preparing…a first response to the input from the user incorporating the connection point (e.g. by thinking of/writing out a happy toned reply to the remembered message),
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper outputting…the first response to the user (e.g. by thinking of/writing out the happy toned reply),
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper incorporating…a set of feedback received from the user to customize the…human companion to increase a first level of intelligence and a second level of adaptability of the…human companion (e.g. by thinking of/writing out remembered comments from the friend concerning replies for drafting more personal replies).
Thus, the claims recite a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements, “one or more computer readable storage media”, “one or more computer processors”, and “digital”, however the recitations of these elements are at a high level of generality, and amount to 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 (i.e., “one or more computer readable storage media”, “one or more computer processors”) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., “digital”) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Hence, each of the additional limitations or in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2). The additional elements in the claim do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Furthermore, 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “one or more computer readable storage media”, “one or more computer processors”, and “digital” to perform the steps of the independent claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. (STEP 2B). As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to 1, 8, and 15. The dependent claims describe additional mental processes:
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper wherein the connection point is at least one of a mental state of the user, an emotional state of the user, a tone of voice of the user, a verbal cue of the user, and a non-verbal cue of the user (claims 2, 9, and 16) (e.g. by mentally/writing out that the remembered friend’s message was a happy tone)
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper wherein the relationship is built on one or more characteristics, and wherein the one or more characteristics include at least one of trust of the user and empathy with the user (claims 3, 10, and 17) (e.g. by mentally/writing out a rapport with the remembered friend including empathy and trustworthiness)
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper wherein the first response to the input from the user incorporates the connection point by including at least one of a reference to a previous interaction with the user, a first mirroring of the mental state of the user, a second mirroring of the emotional state of the user, a third mirroring of the tone of voice of the user, a second response to the verbal cue of the user, a third response to the non-verbal cue of the user, a first summarization of a first understanding of a feeling expressed by the user, a summarization of a second understanding of a need expressed by the user, and a manifestation of a thoughtful question based on the previous interaction with the user (claims 4, 11, and 18) (e.g. by mentally/writing out the happy toned reply to the remembered message including a synopsis of what was contained in the remembered friend’s happy message)
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper wherein the step of outputting the first response to the user further comprises: communicating…a first reason an action was taken to help the user understand why the action was taken; and communicating…a second reason a recommendation was made in order to help the user understand why the recommendation was made (claims 5, 12, and 19) (e.g. by mentally/writing out the happy toned reply including a reason the message has been delayed in being drafted and a reason for suggesting they get dinner together since it has been too long)
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper wherein a first communication of the first reason the action was taken and a second communication of the second reason the recommendation was made is implemented through a dialogue management system and a…algorithm, wherein the dialogue management system and the…algorithm understands a context, a continuity, and a subtlety of a human-to-human interaction (claims 6 and 13) (e.g. by mentally/writing out the reply being written in English and a computation for semantic reasoning of message tones, subject matter, and empathy)
mentally/with the aid of pen and paper recognizing…one or more relationships of the user; learning…about a degree of importance of the one or more relationships of the user; and considering…the one or more relationships in at least one of a corresponding input and a corresponding output (claims 7, 14, and 20) (e.g. by mentally/writing out the friend has a brother that they are close to, and remembering the brother when drafting future replies)
Again, the dependent claims continued to cover the performance of the limitation in the mind as inherited from the independent claims (Step 2A, Prong 1). The dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19-20 recitation of “by the one or more processors”, are again recited at a high level and 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); claims 6 and 13 recitation of “machine learning algorithm” amount to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2). The additional element in the claims do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements to perform the steps of in the dependent claims and perform the steps of the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and 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; generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and these cannot provide an inventive concept. (STEP 2B). As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea nor provide any inventive concept, therefore are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al (“LET'S CHAT IF YOU ARE UNHAPPY – THE EFFECT OF EMOTIONS ON INTERACTION EXPERIENCE AND TRUST TOWARD EMPATHETIC CHATBOTS”, 2023) hereinafter Liao, in view of Jin et al (“CRS-Que : A User-centric Evaluation Framework for Conversational Recommender Systems”, 2024) hereinafter Rajaretnam.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Liao teaches a computer-implemented method comprising; a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising; a computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the stored program instructions comprising (sections 4-5 teach “Chatbot.com is chosen due to its ease of development and capability of embedding word dictionaries for sentiment detection” for an interactive chatbot with programming software known to be executed on computers with one or more memories communicatively coupled to one or more processors):
initiating, by one or more processors, an interaction between a digital human companion and a user in response to an input from the user (sections 4 and 6 teach “participants were randomly assigned to interact with either the empathetic or non-empathetic chatbot using free text” for detecting “people’s emotional states when they initiate the interaction”);
deriving, by the one or more processors, a connection point from the interaction between the digital human companion and the user to build a relationship with the user (sections 4 and 6 teach “This can be done by asking specific questions and conducting automated sentiment analysis of people’s initial communication to the chatbot (deriving…a connection point from the interaction)” for the students);
preparing, by the one or more processors, a first response to the input from the user incorporating the connection point (sections 4 and 6 teach “This can be done by asking specific questions and conducting automated sentiment analysis of people’s initial communication to the chatbot” for the students, including the “chatbot greeted the participants and asked about their year in school, academic program, general experience, and favorite and least favorite courses”);
outputting, by the one or more processors, the first response to the user (sections 4 and 6 teach “This can be done by asking specific questions and conducting automated sentiment analysis of people’s initial communication to the chatbot”, including the “chatbot greeted the participants and asked about their year in school, academic program, general experience, and favorite and least favorite courses”); and
incorporating, by the one or more processors, a set of feedback received from the user to customize the digital human companion to increase a first level of intelligence and a second level of adaptability of the digital human companion (section 4 and 6 teach “empathetic chatbot was designed to acknowledge emotions and deliver empathetic feedback when emotional expressions were detected in the conversations…empathetic chatbot sent statements such as ‘I am glad to hear that’ when recognizing a positive word in response, ‘the instructor is amazing’ (incorporating feedback)”).
Liao at least implies computer-implemented method comprising; a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising; a computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors and outputting, by the one or more processors, the first response to the user (see mappings above); however, Jin teaches computer-implemented method comprising; a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising; a computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors and outputting, by the one or more processors, the first response to the user (sections 4.2, 4.3 and Figs. 4 and 6 teach outputting an explanations to messaging questions for forming a recommendation and an explanation of a recommendation to the user. Further, section 5.1 teaches the embodiments of the disclosure being performed on “personal computers and mobile phones” that include one or more memories communicatively coupled to one or more processors for executing instructions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Jin’s teachings of outputting empathetic chatbot reasonings and recommendations to user input on specific operating hardware into Liao‘s teaching of an empathetic chatbot detecting student user emotions and determining responses based on the detections in order to (Jin, paragraphs 0104 and 0164).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, the combination of Liao and Jin teach all the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and further teach wherein the connection point is at least one of a mental state of the user, an emotional state of the user, a tone of voice of the user, a verbal cue of the user, and a non-verbal cue of the user (Liao, section 4 and 6 teach “During the interaction, the empathetic chatbot responded to participants’ feelings when emotions were expressed (emotional state of the user) in the conversation and recognized by the chatbot”; and further the “empathetic chatbot was designed to acknowledge emotions and deliver empathetic feedback when emotional expressions (emotional state of the user) were detected in the conversations…empathetic chatbot sent statements such as ‘I am glad to hear that’ when recognizing a positive word in response, ‘the instructor is amazing’ (verbal cue of the user)”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Liao and Jin teach all the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and further teach wherein the relationship is built on one or more characteristics, and wherein the one or more characteristics include at least one of trust of the user and empathy with the user (Liao, section 4 and 6 teach “During the interaction, the empathetic chatbot responded to participants’ feelings when emotions were expressed in the conversation and recognized by the chatbot”; and further the “empathetic chatbot was designed to acknowledge emotions and deliver empathetic feedback when emotional expressions were detected in the conversations…empathetic chatbot sent statements such as ‘I am glad to hear that’ when recognizing a positive word in response, ‘the instructor is amazing’ (empathy)”.).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Liao and Jin teach all the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and further teach wherein the first response to the input from the user incorporates the connection point by including at least one of a reference to a previous interaction with the user, a first mirroring of the mental state of the user, a second mirroring of the emotional state of the user, a third mirroring of the tone of voice of the user, a second response to the verbal cue of the user, a third response to the non-verbal cue of the user, a first summarization of a first understanding of a feeling expressed by the user, a summarization of a second understanding of a need expressed by the user, and a manifestation of a thoughtful question based on the previous interaction with the user (Liao, section 4, 6, and Table 1 teach “analyze and detect people’s emotional states when they initiate the interaction. This can be done by asking specific questions and conducting automated sentiment analysis of people’s initial communication to the chatbot”, including the “chatbot greeted the participants and asked about their year in school, academic program, general experience, and favorite and least favorite courses”. Here, it is understood that the user initiates the conversation (previous interaction from the user), the chatbot performs analysis to detect emotional state, and outputs a greeting and question to the student (first response…including…manifestation of a thoughtful question based on the previous interaction with the user)).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Liao and Jin teach all the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and further teach wherein the step of outputting the first response to the user further comprises: communicating, by the one or more processors, a first reason an action was taken to help the user understand why the action was taken; and communicating, by the one or more processors, a second reason a recommendation was made in order to help the user understand why the recommendation was made (Jin, sections 4.2, 4.3 and Figs. 4 and 6 teach outputting an explanation to why the bot is messaging questions for forming a recommendation (first reason an action was taken to help the user understand why the action was taken) and an explanation of a recommendation to the user (second reason a recommendation was made in order to help the user understand why the recommendation was made)).
Liao and Jin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the combination of Liao and Jin teach all the claim limitations of claims 5 and 12 above; and further teach wherein a first communication is implemented through a dialogue management system and a machine learning algorithm, wherein the dialogue management system and the machine learning algorithm understands a context, a continuity, and a subtlety of a human-to-human interaction (Liao, sections 4, 6, Fig. 2, and Table 1 teach “Chatbot.com (machine learning algorithm) is chosen due to its ease of development and capability of embedding word dictionaries for sentiment detection”, in order for communicating in a user chat (dialogue management system). Further, the “empathetic chatbot was designed to acknowledge emotions and deliver empathetic feedback when emotional expressions were detected in the conversations” (context/subtlety of a human-to-human interaction), and “about the participants’ favorite and least favorite courses at school and probed them to provide more details if the participants’ answers were brief” (context/continuity)).
However, Liao does not explicitly teach wherein a first communication of the first reason the action was taken and a second communication of the second reason the recommendation was made is implemented...
Jin teaches the first reason the action was taken and a second communication of the second reason the recommendation was made is implemented (Jin, sections 4.2, 4.3 and Figs. 4 and 6 teach outputting an explanation to why the bot is messaging questions for forming a recommendation (first reason an action was taken to help the user understand why the action was taken) and an explanation of a recommendation to the user (second reason a recommendation was made in order to help the user understand why the recommendation was made))…
Liao and Jin are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Liao and Jin teach all the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and further teach recognizing, by the one or more processors, one or more relationships of the user; learning, by the one or more processors, about a degree of importance of the one or more relationships of the user; and considering, by the one or more processors, the one or more relationships in at least one of a corresponding input and a corresponding output (Liao, section 4 teaches software “empathetic chatbot sent statements such as ‘I am glad to hear that’ (considering…the one or more relationships in at least one of a corresponding input and a corresponding output) when recognizing a positive word in response, ‘the instructor is amazing’” (recognizing…one or more relationships of the user; learning…about a degree of importance of the one or more relationships of the user)).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skjuve et al (“My Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships”, 2021) teach “The user can communicate with Replika in free text or make phone calls to the chatbot. Replika will by default initiate a conversation every day, but the user can change the settings and let Replika know at which timeslot during the day they prefer Replika to reach out”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT MULLINAX whose telephone number is 571-272-3241. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30 PT.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached on 571-270-3428. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2123
/ALEXEY SHMATOV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights