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 Office Action is in response to the filing date of 9/3/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 19 of copending Application No. 18974244 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The mapping table below provides a mapping between two claims of the applications for viewing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending Application No. 18974244
Application No. 18822786
1. A method for creating an application, comprising:
1. A method for creating an application, comprising:
obtaining configuration information, the configuration information comprising interactive control information about a target interactive scene, wherein the interactive control information is configured to construct a first processing entity corresponding to the target interactive scene such that the first processing entity manages, based on the interactive control information, an interaction process for a set of interactive objects participating in the target interactive scene, and wherein the configuration information further indicates a set of scene variables associated with the target interactive scene, each scene variable of the set of scene variables being configured to provide a corresponding value to one or more interactive objects during the interaction process; and
obtaining configuration information comprising interactive control information and role setting information of a target interactive scenario, the interactive control information being used to construct a first processing entity corresponding to the target interactive scenario, the first processing entity being configured to manage an interactive process of a set of interactive objects participating in the target interactive scenario based on the interactive control information, wherein the role setting information indicates a set of predetermined roles associated with the target interactive scenario; and
creating a target application based on the configuration information.
creating a target application based on the configuration information.
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.
Regarding claim 1:
Under Prong 1 Step 2A claim 1 recites “creating a target application based on the configuration information” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “obtaining configuration information comprising interactive control information and role setting information of a target interactive scenario, the interactive control information being used to construct a first processing entity corresponding to the target interactive scenario, the first processing entity being configured to manage an interactive process of a set of interactive objects participating in the target interactive scenario based on the interactive control information, wherein the role setting information indicates a set of predetermined roles associated with the target interactive scenario” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data of the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the 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, the additional elements which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and outputting the results of the abstract idea and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 18 recite additional elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologies environment or field of use. Thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17 recite additional elements merely insignificantly extra solution activity such as gathering and displaying data which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 216.05(g).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, recite limitations that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Thus, it’s reasonable to identify these limitations as reciting a mental process.
Regarding claim 13:
Under Prong 1 Step 2A claim 1 recites “creating a target application based on the configuration information” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements (1) “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions executed by the at least one processing unit” and (2) “obtaining configuration information comprising interactive control information and role setting information of a target interactive scenario, the interactive control information being used to construct a first processing entity corresponding to the target interactive scenario, the first processing entity being configured to manage an interactive process of a set of interactive objects participating in the target interactive scenario based on the interactive control information, wherein the role setting information indicates a set of predetermined roles associated with the target interactive scenario.” The additional limitation (1) are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The additional limitation (2) merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and outputting the results of the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the 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, the additional element (1) mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept. The additional element (2) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data of the abstract idea and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 20:
Under Prong 1 Step 2A claim 1 recites “creating a target application based on the configuration information” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements (1) “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program can be executed by a processor to implement the method” and (2) “obtaining configuration information comprising interactive control information and role setting information of a target interactive scenario, the interactive control information being used to construct a first processing entity corresponding to the target interactive scenario, the first processing entity being configured to manage an interactive process of a set of interactive objects participating in the target interactive scenario based on the interactive control information, wherein the role setting information indicates a set of predetermined roles associated with the target interactive scenario.” The additional limitation (1) are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The additional limitation (2) merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and outputting the results of the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the 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, the additional element (1) mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept. The additional element (2) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data of the abstract idea and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-20 are considered allowable when reading the claims in light of the specification. The prior arts of record do not teach or reasonably suggest the combination of the limitations specified in the independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
The closest prior arts are:
Sullivan et al. (US10554817) Systems for providing a contact center system detect patterns in the behavior of service agent users and customers having a customer service issue. The system records activity data describing interactions of the users with a virtualized contact center and with each other; the activity data is aggregated and then analyzed (e.g., using a machine learning engine) to measure one or more metrics that define a behavior pattern. The analysis identifies an intent expressed by customers having a common issue and further identifies attributes of the intent as well as the actions taken by the service agents in response to the intent. The system uses the analysis to generate a workflow of potential interactions that resolve the issue. The system automates the workflow by generating and deploying a computerized service agent configured to interact with customers of a contact center and execute the workflow (see the Abstract).
Goovany (CN102918500A) teaches a program creation system is described which generates a data manipulation program based on input-output examples. The created program may include a collection of subprograms together with a collection of corresponding selection conditions. When a new input item is received, a program execution module uses the selection conditions to select one of the subprograms. The program execution module then applies the selected subprogram to generate a new output item. The program creation system generates the program using a three-part approach, involving: generating sets of subprograms for the respective input-output examples; grouping the sets of programs into partitions and choosing representative subprograms for the partitions; and determining the selection conditions. A user interaction module provides various mechanisms which allow a user to interact with the program creation system and thereby improve the performance of the created program (see at least the Abstract).
Briaud (WO2009000976A1) teaches a system for automatically generating a software application manipulating structured data formulated from elementary data predefined by the generating system, comprises a generating platform (1) linked to a communication network (2), and at least one terminal (4, 5) linked to said communication network. The platform (1) comprises means for inputting data describing elementary interactions associated with scenarios associated with cases of use of the software application, which are accessible from a terminal (4, 4) by way of the network (2), means (5) for automatically generating the software application as a function of said scenarios, and means (6) for instantaneously making the software application generated available to a terminal (4, 5) linked to said communication network (2) (see at least the Abstract).
Applicant’s claimed invention is deemed allowable over the cited prior arts above as the prior arts do not teach the combination of the limitations specified in independent claim 1:
“the interactive control information being used to construct a first processing entity corresponding to the target interactive scenario, the first processing entity being configured to manage an interactive process of a set of interactive objects participating in the target interactive scenario based on the interactive control information, wherein the role setting information indicates a set of predetermined roles associated with the target interactive scenario”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Wei Zhen can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/PHILLIP H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights