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 responsive to the Application filed on 9/4/2024, which claims priority to provisional application 63/582635 filed on 9/14/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method, claims 9-14 are drawn to a method and claims 16-20 are drawn to a system, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of matter; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below).
As to claim 1:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “biasing the data to produce modified data;” and “creating a digital clone of the autonomous agent in the reasoning engine module” are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “collecting data about an autonomous agent; inputting the data into a biasing module… entering the modified data into a reasoning engine module” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “collecting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “collecting data about an autonomous agent; inputting the data into a biasing module… entering the modified data into a reasoning engine module” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “collecting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
As to claim 8:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “biasing the data to produce modified data;” and “creating a digital clone of the autonomous agent in the reasoning engine module” are the abstract ideas of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “developing a digital clone model” and “entering the digital clone model into a revision module” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “digital clone model”, and “revision module” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “collecting data about an autonomous agent; inputting the data into a biasing module… entering the modified data into a reasoning engine module” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “collecting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “developing a digital clone model” and “entering the digital clone model into a revision module” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished because it is unclear how the “digital clone model”, and “revision module” are used nor the specification makes it clear how these actions are performed. Thus, these additional elements are recited in a manner that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “collecting data about an autonomous agent; inputting the data into a biasing module… entering the modified data into a reasoning engine module” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “collecting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network / performing repetitive calculations / electronic recordkeeping / storing and retrieving information in memory / electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
As to claim 15:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “utilize a reasoning engine to develop a digital clone of the autonomous agent” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, this limitation “a memory; a processor connected to the memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “store entered data from an autonomous agent into the memory; receive inputs from a user to modify the data;” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “collecting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “a memory; a processor connected to the memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “store entered data from an autonomous agent into the memory; receive inputs from a user to modify the data;” amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “collecting”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
The dependent claims do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abramson et al (US 10853717 B2).
Referring to claim 1, Abramson discloses a method for digital cloning, comprising,
collecting data about an autonomous agent; (col. 8, line 63-col. 9, line 34 of Abramson, collecting data about a person)
inputting the data into a biasing module; (col. 7, line 63-col. 9, line 34 of Abramson, collecting data about a person)
biasing the data to produce modified data; (col. 8, lines 15-24 of Abramson, The scoring or comparison algorithm/model may generate and/or assign scores or labels to the evaluated characteristics. The scoring or comparison algorithm/model may use the generated scores/labels to determine a similarity score or metric for the other person. The similarity score/metric may represent the estimated similarity between a specific person/entity and the other person/entity. In aspects, the processed personalized data may be used to create, organize, populate or update a personalized personality index for the specific person/entity identified in the request.” Hence, the adjusted score that is the biasing data applied to the data collected of a person)
entering the modified data into a reasoning engine module; (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning) and
creating a digital clone of the autonomous agent in the reasoning engine module. (col. 11, lines 10-46 of Abramson, apply the personality index into a chat bot or LU model to mimic what the actual person will do or make decisions)
Referring to claim 2, Abramson discloses the method for digital cloning of claim 1, further including entering observed current states into the reasoning engine module. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 3, Abramson discloses the method for digital cloning of claim 1, further including entering information from an archetype model into the reasoning engine module. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 4, Abramson discloses the method for digital cloning of claim 1, wherein the data includes digital messages selected from the group consisting of email messages and text messages. (col. 11, lines 10-46 of Abramson, emails and messages)
Referring to claim 5, Abramson discloses the method for digital cloning of claim 1, wherein the data includes social media data. (col. 15, lines 41-64 of Abramson, social media data)
Referring to claim 7, Abramson discloses the method of digital cloning of claim 1, wherein the reasoning engine module comprises an artificial intelligence system. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 15, Abramson discloses a system for digital cloning, comprising, a memory; a processor connected to the memory and having executable instructions to: store entered data from an autonomous agent into the memory; receive inputs from a user to modify the data; and utilize a reasoning engine to develop a digital clone of the autonomous agent. (see citations of claim 1)
Referring to claim 16, Abramson discloses the system for digital cloning of claim 15, wherein the reasoning engine module comprises an artificial intelligence system. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 17, Abramson discloses the system for digital cloning of claim 15, further comprising an archetype model in the memory. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 19, Abramson discloses the system for digital cloning of claim 15, wherein the entered data includes digital messages selected from the group consisting of email messages and text messages. (col. 11, lines 10-46 of Abramson, emails and messages)
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson et al (US 10853717 B2) in view of Allen (US 12451115 B2).
Referring to claim 6, Abramson discloses the method of digital cloning of claim 1. Abramson does not specifically disclose wherein the biasing module includes multiplier factors.
However, Allen discloses entering the digital clone model into a revision module (col. 23, line 49- col. 24, line 3 of Allen).
Abramson and Allen are analogous art because both references concerning using AI model to copy and train online presence of a user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abramson’s inputting user’s behavior into chat bot with biasing input data of the user and the biasing using multiplication of the input data as taught by Allen. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep the avatar most mimic to the real person’s behavior by feeding it real time information about the user.
Claims 8-12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson et al (US 10853717 B2) in view of Kasaba (US 12309529 B2).
Referring to claim 8, Abramson discloses a method for digital cloning, comprising, collecting data about an autonomous agent; inputting the data into a biasing module; biasing the data to produce modified data; entering the modified data into a reasoning engine module; creating a digital clone of the autonomous agent in the reasoning engine module; developing a digital clone model. (see citations of claim 1)
Abramson does not specifically disclose “entering the digital clone model into a revision module”.
However, Kasaba discloses entering the digital clone model into a revision module (col. 26, lines 1-17 of Kasaba and Col. 27, lines 15-44, where the model takes real time feedback of the user data and using AI model to train the avatar to mimic user’s movements).
Abramson and Kasaba are analogous art because both references concerning using AI model to copy and train online presence of a user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abramson’s inputting user’s behavior into chat bot with real time feedback of the user’s behavior to further train the avatar as taught by Kasaba. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep the avatar most mimic to the real person’s behavior by feeding it real time information about the user.
Referring to claim 9, Abramson in view of Kasaba disclose the method for digital cloning of claim 8, further including entering observed current states into the reasoning engine module. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 10, Abramson in view of Kasaba disclose the method for digital cloning of claim 8, further including entering information from an archetype model into the reasoning engine module. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 11, Abramson in view of Kasaba disclose the method for digital cloning of claim 8, wherein the data includes digital messages selected from the group consisting of email messages and text messages. (col. 11, lines 10-46 of Abramson, emails and messages)
Referring to claim 12, Abramson in view of Kasaba disclose the method for digital cloning of claim 8, wherein the data includes social media data. (col. 15, lines 41-64 of Abramson, social media data)
Referring to claim 14, Abramson in view of Kasaba disclose the method of digital cloning of claim 8, wherein the reasoning engine module comprises an artificial intelligence system. (col. 8, lines 13-49 of Abramson, enter data into a machine learning model for processing dialogue and the ML model may then apply decision logic to determine a reasoning)
Referring to claim 18, Abramson discloses the system for digital cloning of claim 15. Abramson does not specifically disclose wherein the entered data include observed current states of the autonomous agent.
However, Kasaba discloses the entered data include observed current states of the autonomous agent (col. 26, lines 1-17 of Kasaba and Col. 27, lines 15-44, where the model takes real time feedback of the user data and using AI model to train the avatar to mimic user’s movements).
Abramson and Kasaba are analogous art because both references concerning using AI model to copy and train online presence of a user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abramson’s inputting user’s behavior into chat bot with real time feedback of the user’s behavior to further train the avatar as taught by Kasaba. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep the avatar most mimic to the real person’s behavior by feeding it real time information about the user.
Referring to claim 20, Abramson discloses the system for digital cloning of claim 15. Abramson does not specifically disclose further comprising a refinement model.
However, Kasaba discloses a refinement model (col. 26, lines 1-17 of Kasaba and Col. 27, lines 15-44, where the model takes real time feedback of the user data and using AI model to train the avatar to mimic user’s movements).
Abramson and Kasaba are analogous art because both references concerning using AI model to copy and train online presence of a user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abramson’s inputting user’s behavior into chat bot with real time feedback of the user’s behavior to further train the avatar as taught by Kasaba. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep the avatar most mimic to the real person’s behavior by feeding it real time information about the user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson et al (US 10853717 B2) in view of Kasaba (US 12309529 B2) in view of in view of Allen (US 12451115 B2).
Referring to claim 13, Abramson in view of Kasaba disclose the method of digital cloning of claim 8. Abramson in view of Kasaba do not specifically disclose wherein the biasing module includes multiplier factors.
However, Allen discloses entering the digital clone model into a revision module (col. 23, line 49- col. 24, line 3 of Allen).
Abramson and Kasaba and Allen are analogous art because both references concerning using AI model to copy and train online presence of a user. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Abramson and Kasaba’s inputting user’s behavior into chat bot with biasing input data of the user and the biasing using multiplication of the input data as taught by Allen. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep the avatar most mimic to the real person’s behavior by feeding it real time information about the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights