SEGMENT SEQUENCING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOPOLOGY

§101 §102 §103

DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed 07/19/2024. Claims 19-38 are pending and have been examined. 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 . Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Claim 19: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 19 recites an artificial intelligence infrastructure comprising circuitry and is thus an apparatus, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 recites manage a plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally managing segments and is thus an evaluation.) manage the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation via a corresponding plurality of topologies, and at least a first of the corresponding plurality of topologies being different from a second of the corresponding plurality of topologies. (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally managing segments via different topologies and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 19 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 further recites additional elements of An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) the circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) Therefore, claim 19 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 19 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 19 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding Claim 20: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 recites perform an overall generation objective using segmented and sub-segmented topology. (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally performing generation using topology and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 20 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 20 further recites additional elements of the circuitry is operable to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) Therefore, claim 20 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 20 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because the circuitry is operable to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 20 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding Claim 21: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 21 recites a varying sub-segment count specification is operable to define segment types comprising one or more of an index page, a subscription offer, a mixed advertiser segment, and an article. (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally defining segment types with sub-segment count specification and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 21 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 21 does not further recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 21 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: Since there are no additional elements, claim 21 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination. Therefore, claim 21 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding Claim 22: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 22 recites a dual sub-segment specification is operable to support a generation of each page of a document as a segment with text and image generation handled by separate sub-segments. (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally supporting generation of pages of a document with a dual sub-segment specification and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 22 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 22 does not further recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 22 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: Since there are no additional elements, claim 22 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination. Therefore, claim 22 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding Claim 23: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 23 recites the same abstract ideas as claim 19. Therefore, claim 23 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 23 further recites additional elements of wherein: an overall generation objective is to generate one of: an electronic storybook, a sales brochure, and a magazine. (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it recites a technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).) Therefore, claim 23 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 23 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because wherein: an overall generation objective is to generate one of: an electronic storybook, a sales brochure, and a magazine specifies a particular technological environment to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, claim 23 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding Claim 24: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 24 recites an artificial intelligence infrastructure comprising circuitry and is thus an apparatus, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 24 recites manage a plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation; (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally managing a plurality of segments and is thus an evaluation.) manage the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation to provide an overall generation objective by employing a corresponding plurality of segment topologies, at least one of the plurality of segment topologies including a first artificial intelligence based sub-topology and a second artificial intelligence based sub-topology, wherein the first artificial intelligence based sub-topology being different than that of the second artificial intelligence based sub-topology. (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally managing segments by employing different topologies and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 24 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 24 further recites additional elements of An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) the circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) Therefore, claim 24 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 24 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 24 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 20, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding Claim 29: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 29 recites an artificial intelligence infrastructure comprising first circuitry and is thus an apparatus, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 29 recites select a subset of a plurality of artificial intelligence topology segments to support a segmented production of an overall generation objective, the segmented production involving a plurality of segment generations; (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally selecting topology segments and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 29 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 29 further recites additional elements of An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: first circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) the first circuitry being configured to withhold a response to first indication data occurring during first generation of a first segment of the plurality of segment generations until after the first generation ends. (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).) Therefore, claim 29 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 29 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: first circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). the first circuitry being configured to withhold a response to first indication data occurring during first generation of a first segment of the plurality of segment generations until after the first generation ends is the well understood, routine, and conventional activity of “transmitting or receiving data over a network” (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network)). Therefore, claim 29 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 20, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding Claim 34: Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1: Claim 34 recites an artificial intelligence infrastructure comprising first circuitry and is thus an apparatus, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 34 recites support a plurality of segment topologies corresponding to a plurality of generated segments of an overall segmented artificial intelligence based objective (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally supporting topologies and is thus an evaluation.) select a first of the plurality of segment topologies for generating a first of the plurality of generated segments, the first of the plurality of generated segments being different from at least one other of the plurality of segment topologies. (This limitation is a mental process as it encompasses a human mentally selecting topology segments and is thus an evaluation.) Therefore, claim 34 recites an abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 34 further recites additional elements of An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) circuitry configured to (This element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts to mere “apply it on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).) Therefore, claim 34 is not integrated into a practical application. Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B: The additional elements of claim 34 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination because An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). circuitry configured to uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claim 34 is subject-matter ineligible. Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 20, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. 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(s) 19-21, 23-26, 28-31, 33-36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Storytelling from an Image Stream Using Scene Graphs”) (hereafter referred to as Wang). Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to manage a plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation are the sub-stories of a story.); and the circuitry configured to manage the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation via a corresponding plurality of topologies, and at least a first of the corresponding plurality of topologies being different from a second of the corresponding plurality of topologies (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the scene graphs are the topologies.). Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches, The artificial intelligence infrastructure of claim 19, wherein: the circuitry is operable to perform an overall generation objective using segmented and sub-segmented topology (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model, the sub-stories is the overall generation objective and the scene graphs are the segmented and sub-segmented topologies.). Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches The artificial intelligence infrastructure of claim 19, wherein: a varying sub-segment count specification is operable to define segment types comprising one or more of an index page, a subscription offer, a mixed advertiser segment, and an article (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model, the index of sub-stories is the segment count defining an article.). Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches The artificial intelligence infrastructure of claim 19, wherein: an overall generation objective is to generate one of: an electronic storybook, a sales brochure, and a magazine (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the generation of sub-stories make up the generation of a storybook.). Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to manage a plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation are the sub-stories of a story.); and the circuitry configured to manage the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation to provide an overall generation objective by employing a corresponding plurality of segment topologies, at least one of the plurality of segment topologies including a first artificial intelligence based sub-topology and a second artificial intelligence based sub-topology, wherein the first artificial intelligence based sub-topology being different than that of the second artificial intelligence based sub-topology (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the scene graphs are the topologies.). Regarding claim 25, claim 25 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 20, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 29, Wang teaches An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: first circuitry configured to select a subset of a plurality of artificial intelligence topology segments to support a segmented production of an overall generation objective, the segmented production involving a plurality of segment generations; (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation are the sub-stories of a story. Examiner further notes that generating scene graphs is the selecting topologies.); and the first circuitry being configured to withhold a response to first indication data occurring during first generation of a first segment of the plurality of segment generations until after the first generation ends. (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the response to first indication data is the sub-story of a story which is generated after the first generation of scene graphs, or first generation.). Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 20, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 34, Wang teaches An artificial intelligence infrastructure, comprising: circuitry configured to support a plurality of segment topologies corresponding to a plurality of generated segments of an overall segmented artificial intelligence based objective (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the plurality of segments of artificial intelligence generation are the sub-stories of a story.); and the circuitry configured to select a first of the plurality of segment topologies for generating a first of the plurality of generated segments, the first of the plurality of generated segments being different from at least on other of the plurality of segment topologies (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the circuitry is the SGVST model and the scene graphs are the topologies. Examiner further notes that generating scene graphs is the selecting topologies.). Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 20, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 38, claim 38 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. 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 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. Claim(s) 22, 27, 32, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Radiano et al. (“Story Albums: Creating Fictional Stories From Personal Photograph Sets”) (hereafter referred to as Radiano). Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches the intelligence infrastructure of claim 19. Wang further teaches wherein: a dual sub-segment specification is operable to support a generation … of a document as a segment with text and image generation handled by separate sub-segments (Wang, page 2, Figure 2, PNG media_image1.png 318 752 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner notes that the SGVST model is the dual sub-segment specification that generates a document as a segment with text and image generation, in which the generation of the document are handled by separate sub-segments.) Wang does not disclose, but Radiano discloses support a generation of each page of a document as a segment with text and image generation …(Radiano, page 7, 1st column, first paragraph, “Once we have the assignment of nodes in the story graph to photos as well as the mapping of all relevant characters to story entities, we create the final visual depiction of the story. The assignment vector x = (x1, …, xk) provides an ordered sequence of photos Ix1, … I xk that should be displayed in order along with the text stored at their respective nodes” and “To find a best mapping of photo to page templates, the sequence of photos must be separated to sub-sequence according to the number of photos per page” (Radiano, page 7, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).). Wang and Radiano are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they use graphs architectures in machine learning to generate stories. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified Wang to use pages like in Radiano. Doing so is advantageous because “we can support different styles of depictions for the story by choosing different sets of templates for each style” (Radiano, page 3, 1st paragraph). Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected under the same analysis. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tang et al. (“NGEP: A Graph-based Event Planning Framework for Story Generation”) also discloses generating stories with topologies. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN R LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-1429. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST. 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, Michelle Bechtold can be reached at (571) 431-0762. 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. /K.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2148 /MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148