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
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 06/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “determining, whether the information within the first input should be written to a personalization notepad”; “writing, the information into the personalization notepad;; and “the output that is responsive to the prompt by using contents of the personalization notepad, wherein the output was influenced by the contents of the personalization notepad including the information within the first input” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“receiving, by a generative response engine, a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account”; “receiving, a second input from the user account that includes a prompt to the generative response engine to generate an output that is responsive to the prompt” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“generating, by the generative response engine” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receiving, by a generative response engine, a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“generating, by the generative response engine” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 9:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a system, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “determine, whether the information within the first input should be written to a personalization notepad”; “write, the information into the personalization notepad;; and “the output that is responsive to the prompt by using contents of the personalization notepad, wherein the output was influenced by the contents of the personalization notepad including the information within the first input” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“receiving, by a generative response engine, a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account” ; “receive, a second input from the user account that includes a prompt to the generative response engine to generate an output that is responsive to the prompt” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“generating, by the generative response engine” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
“a processor and memory” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receiving, by a generative response engine, a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account” ; “receive, a second input from the user account that includes a prompt to the generative response engine to generate an output that is responsive to the prompt” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“generating, by the generative response engine” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
“a processor and memory” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 15:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a medium, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “determine, whether the information within the first input should be written to a personalization notepad”; “write, the information into the personalization notepad;; and “the output that is responsive to the prompt by using contents of the personalization notepad, wherein the output was influenced by the contents of the personalization notepad including the information within the first input” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“receiving, by a generative response engine, a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account” ; “receive, a second input from the user account that includes a prompt to the generative response engine to generate an output that is responsive to the prompt” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“generating, by the generative response engine” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
“a processor and memory” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“receiving, by a generative response engine, a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account” ; “receive, a second input from the user account that includes a prompt to the generative response engine to generate an output that is responsive to the prompt” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“generating, by the generative response engine” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
“a processor and memory” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim recites 2 “determining, by the generative response engine, whether to personalize the output based on the contents of the personalization notepad” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 3 recites “receiving, by the generative response engine, a third input from the user account that requests that the information within the first input be removed from the personalization notepad; identifying, by the generative response engine, one or more notes in the personalization notepad corresponding to the information; and deleting the one or more notes in response to the third input” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 recites “performing an asynchronous consolidation process on the personalization notepad when the personalization notepad approaches or achieves a configured number of notes” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 recites “ analyzing the contents of the personalization notepad to identify similar or related concepts expressed in different notes; rewriting the similar or related concepts into a single note; and deleting the different notes containing the similar or related concepts, thereby achieving additional capacity for new notes in the personalization notepad” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 6 recites “determining that a track topics option is not enabled whereby the generative response engine does not store the topics associated with sessions where the user account interacted with the generative response engine; wherein the generative response engine does not determine whether the information within the first input should be written to the personalization notepad amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the user account can create a plurality of identities, wherein the plurality of identities can be associated with a respective personalization notepad, whereby the plurality of identities can be associated with a different information” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the personalization notepad is persistently stored in a database associated with the user account, wherein the personalization notepad is loaded into a memory associated with an instance of the generative response engine” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 9-20 recite subject matter similar to claims 1-8, respectively, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons and based on the same rationale set forth with respect to claims 1-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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(s) 1-5, 8-11, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al Hasan.et al. (US 2020/0160199)
Claim 1. Al Hasan discloses a method for selectively learning facts for generation of personalized responses, the method comprising:
receiving, by a generative response engine (dynamic learning engine 110), a first input from a user account that includes information associated with a user associated with the user account ([0006], [0108], [0096]);
determining, by the generative response engine, whether the information within the first input should be written to a personalization notepad ([0090]-[0091], [0101])[the redundancy-checking and summarization module first determines whether received content is redundant or repetitive and summarizes content to preserve important information. The memorizing module then receives the succinct content and is configured to understand what content needs to be memorized using heuristics and rules. The information may concern the user's current condition, upcoming events, or interests];
writing, by the generative response engine, the information into the personalization notepad ([0095]) [The user-profile generation module “gather[s] data regarding a user in real time and generate[s] a user profile storing this information.” The stored information may include the user's name, preferences, history, and background, and the profile is updated when new information is received… memorizing module separately determines information that needs to be memorized].
receiving, by the generative response engine, a second input from the user account that includes a prompt to the generative response engine to generate an output that is responsive to the prompt ([0060])[ a user may describe a concern or ask a question, and the system processes the received question to determine appropriate answer components], ([0063]) [a user may describe a concern or ask a question, and the system processes the received question to determine appropriate answer components] ; and
generating, by the generative response engine, the output that is responsive to the prompt by using contents of the personalization notepad, wherein the output was influenced by the contents of the personalization notepad including the information within the first input ([0044]-[0045],[0047]) [agent may leverage knowledge of personal information to provide personalized content and may use knowledge of a user's preferences and personality profile in conversation]..([0096])[ the system may analyze previous interactions with a user to generate more appropriate responses for future interactions. In the disclosed example, the system learns from a prior conversation that a user's sister had died and subsequently uses that information in a future conversation to avoid generating an inappropriate suggestion and instead generate a more appropriate response].
Claim 2. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the generative response engine, whether to personalize the output based on the contents of the personalization notepad ([0045]) [evaluating user information and user-profile characteristics when determining appropriate dialogue. Philips states that the agent dynamically learns a user's background, culture, and personal preferences from real-time interactions and uses those conversations and knowledge sources to assist in generating dialogue].
Claim 3. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the generative response engine, a third input from the user account that requests that the information within the first input be removed from the personalization notepad; identifying, by the generative response engine, one or more notes in the personalization notepad corresponding to the information; and deleting the one or more notes in response to the third input (a forget module 508 configured to determine what information is unnecessary based on, inter alia, “user instructions… Once this information is identified, the forget module 508 may delete or otherwise remove this information from memory”) ([0092]).
Claim 4. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing an asynchronous consolidation process on the personalization notepad when the personalization notepad approaches or achieves a configured number of notes (detecting redundant or repetitive content and summarizing content to preserve important information while making the information succinct for further processing) ([0090]).
Claim 5. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the asynchronous consolidation process comprises: analyzing the contents of the personalization notepad to identify similar or related concepts expressed in different notes; rewriting the similar or related concepts into a single note; and deleting the different notes containing the similar or related concepts, thereby achieving additional capacity for new notes in the personalization notepad ([0090])[ analyzing received content to determine whether it is redundant or repetitive and summarizing the content to preserve important information… Deleting redundant source records after successful consolidation would have been an inherent data-management choice, particularly where the purpose of consolidation is to reduce storage or context burden].
Claim 8. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the personalization notepad is persistently stored in a database associated with the user account, wherein the personalization notepad is loaded into a memory associated with an instance of the generative response engine ([0095])[ a user profile that stores information regarding the user's name, preferences, history, and background and updates the profile as new information is received… a conversational database storing data regarding previous conversations between the system and the user, claim 2].
Claims 9-11, 14-17 and 20 represent the system and medium of claims 1-4 and 8, respectively and are rejected along the same rationale.
5. Claims 7, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Hasan et al. (US 2020/0160199) in view of Huang et al. “Memory Sandbox: Transparent and Interactive Memory Management for Conversational Agents” 2023.
Claim 6. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that a track topics option is not enabled whereby the generative response engine does not store the topics associated with sessions where the user account interacted with the generative response engine; wherein the generative response engine does not determine whether the information within the first input should be written to the personalization notepad.
However, Huang discloses determining that a track topics option is not enabled whereby the generative response engine does not store the topics associated with sessions where the user account interacted with the generative response engine; wherein the generative response engine does not determine whether the information within the first input should be written to the personalization notepad (Sections 2.2, 2.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al Hasan further in view of Huang to incorporate the above cited features. One would have been motivated to do so to avoid unnecessarily consumption of computational resources.
Claims 12 and 18 represent the system and medium of claim 6 and are rejected along the same rationale.
6. Claims 7, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Hasan et al. (US 2020/0160199) in view of Mayers (US 8,271,894).
Claim 7. Al Hasan discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user account can create a plurality of identities, wherein the plurality of identities can be associated with a respective personalization notepad, whereby the plurality of identities can be associated with a different information.
However, Mayers discloses wherein the user account can create a plurality of identities, wherein the plurality of identities can be associated with a respective personalization notepad, whereby the plurality of identities can be associated with a different information (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al Hasan further in view of Mayers to incorporate the above cited features. One would have been motivated to do so user's real identity can be avoided.
Claims 13 and 19 represent the system and medium of claim 7 and are rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
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.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights