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 .
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 15 May 2026, claims 1-2, 5-14, and 21 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 3-4 and 15-20 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-14, and 21 are presently pending in the application, of which claim 1 is presented in independent form.
The previously raised 112(b), indefiniteness rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 May 2026 with respect to the 112(b), indefiniteness rejection of the pending claims (see Remarks, p. 7-12) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments overcome the issues that were raised, and the 112(b), indefiniteness rejection has been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 May 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, p. 12-19) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s statement that “As the Examiner expressed in the Telephonic Interview held April 10, 2-26 [sic], Desjardins reiterates that 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112—not § 101—are the traditional and appropriate statutory tools for assessing claim scope, conventionality, and sufficiency of disclosure. Id. at 10” (emphasis added) (see Remarks, p. 13), is unpersuasive for being false and incorrect.
This particular quote from the Desjardins opinion is clearly obiter dicta. This is evidenced by the fact that there have been no procedural changes to patent examination with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., ratio decidendi). Thus, contrary to Applicant’s erroneous interpretation, Desjardins does not “reiterate” the other statutes as being “the traditional and appropriate statutory tools” for assessing patentability. Firstly, no legal or judicial precedent has even stated this (i.e., thus, there is no precedential basis from which Desjardins is supposedly “reiterating”). Secondly, this was clearly commentary / broad policy musings (obiter dicta), i.e., no changes to legal and procedural requirements for patent examination have been made in view of Desjardins. Therefore, it would be legally and procedurally improper to ignore considering claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Secondly, the Examiner would not have expressed any alleged “reiteration”, as (1) this aspect of Desjardins was not discussed during the interview, and (2) any statement on how claims should or would be examined (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 101 being allegedly unneeded in view of the other statutory requirements), is not pertinent, as what matters is current established legal and procedural frameworks.
In fact, during the interview, the Examiner and Applicant explicitly discussed the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, as well as potential amendments to the claims in an effort to overcome 35 U.S.C. § 101. Such interactions contradict Applicant’s attempt to frame discussions as being focused on other statutes, not on 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, it was clear from the Examiner’s actions and discussion with Applicant that the claims would continue to be examined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In a similar vein, Applicant’s argument that “Returning now to our arguments, the Appeals Review Panel in Desjardins highlighted that ‘categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America’s leadership in this critical emerging technology”. Id at 9” (Remarks, p. 13) is unpersuasive.
The underlined portion above implies (1) the present claims fall under AI innovations, and (2) denying such an AI patent, as a result, would “jeopardize[] America’s leadership in this critical emerging technology”.
Neither point is persuasive. Firstly, the present claims are not directed to “AI”. The present claims are concerned with memory management (see, e.g., the preamble to independent claim 1), which are then utilized by an artificial intelligence system. This is further seen from uses of a user interface to visually display and manipulate such information, no different than, e.g., previous cases found to be patent ineligible such as in Erie Indemnity, Electric Power Group, etc. Invoking an AI system that utilizes the claimed invention does not make the claims “AI”; instead, the claims pertain to storage management and retrieval that are generic/non-specific. Mere narrowing to one of a plurality of general contexts does not make the claimed invention “AI”.
Secondly, the Appeal Review Panel’s statement that “categorically excluding AI patents jeopardizes America’s leadership in this critical emerging technology” highlights another instance of Applicant conflating commentary or speculative scenarios (obiter dicta), with binding precedent (ratio decidendi). No changes have been made to 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of Desjardins. Applicant’s argument rests on an erroneous assumption that the present claims must be patent eligible solely for being AI, which contradicts established current legal and procedural frameworks. None of the relevant authorities have established that AI-directed claims automatically receive a free pass when it comes to patent eligibility considerations.
Applicant’s argument that “the pending claims do not appear to be directed to mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activities when evaluated consistently with the guidance set forth by the Appeals Review Panel in Ex parte Desjardins…as well as in the December 5th, 2025, USPTO Memorandum” (see Remarks, p. 14-15) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s more specific argument that “Consistent with Enfish, Desjardins confirms that improvements implemented through logical structures, model-based processing, or algorithmic operations may constitute non-abstract technological improvements, even though they are not defined by new physical hardware” (see Remarks, p. 14-15) is unpersuasive and ignores the basis for the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the present claims.
The present claims were rejected for mostly reciting steps that can be mentally performed in the mind, i.e., mental tasks or processes, as well as certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claims do not go beyond what can be practically performed in the mind or simply represent human activity but on a computer, this still recites an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” with a computer, with the same deficient result.
Thus, the fact that the claims invoke “databases”, “user interfaces” and “software” for performing the disclosed steps do no more than attempt to narrow the claims to elements slightly less generic than a computer or memory. However, attempting to narrow or reformulate an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, i.e., insignificant field-of-use limitations.1
Applicant’s assertion that “the claims (as amended) recite elements which provide non-abstract improvements to a technology or technical field, are therefore not directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity), and are thus patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One” (see Remarks, p. 15) is unpersuasive.
Firstly, any purported improvement is considered at Step 2A, Prong Two, not Prong One, as argued by Applicant. Thus, this is moot in view of considering whether claims “recite” an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One.
Secondly, even when considering this as part of Step 2A, Prong Two, this is unpersuasive because it is not merely whether there is an intended improvement, but rather whether the claims reflect that improvement.2 Here, the claims do not reflect the improvement, but are primarily directed to the resulting goal or effect rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments only state that somehow the intended field of technology is improved by the claimed steps, without tying, e.g., via the steps or structure to any particular purported improvement.3 Thus, such arguments are not persuasive in light of the claimed elements and the Specification.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims not needing to explicitly set forth the improvement (see Remarks, p. 16) is moot, as the Examiner had already acknowledged during the interview that, consistent with established legal and procedural frameworks, no explicit recitation of the improvement needs to be within the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the purported improvements (see Remarks, p. 16-18) are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims “[facilitate] memory management…by weighing the attributes of the memories [which] enables AI agents [to improve in various aspects]” (Remarks, p. 16-17). Similarly, Applicant argues “Organizing a plurality of memories by labels and/or attribute weights in the accessible database…is beneficial when generating lists of memories used for possible training data for training the AI agent…[which] allow for the improved training of AI agents as well as the creation of highly-relevant AI training data that is also individualized/customizable based on different application contexts and user contexts for a variety of different users…” (Remarks, p. 17-18).
Notably, there is nothing specific about the weighting itself that would necessarily result in any of these purported improvements. Instead, the weight is assigned in a wholly generic manner, instead of being tethered specifically to the realm/technology of an AI agent, e.g., presumably as a specific improvement to the AI agent. The labelling and weighing are not specifically tailored to, i.e., integrated with, the application of, e.g., improved training of AI agents, making AI training data that is highly relevant and individualized/customizable.
In other words, the claims simply recite a generic implementation of collecting and weighting data, and then applying it to various contexts, which is simply stating the abstract idea while adding insignificant field-of-use limitations that describe the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
As a result, the claims do not reflect those purported improvements, but rather invoke the AI agent in a manner that attempts to narrow the otherwise generic nature of the claimed steps to a particular technological field, i.e., implementation with an AI agent, which does not amount to significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to purported improvements to visualizations (see Remarks, p. 17) are unpersuasive.
The visualization of the information serves little more than as a generic interface for communicating retrieved information to a user. Populating it with certain colors to visually distinguish different categories/types from one another does nothing more than provide context to information being displayed, e.g., field-of-use limitation, but does not improve the underlying technology, e.g., with respect to the labelling/weighting of information.
Instead, it simply exists as a tool to be used in the abstract idea of allowing users to manage personal behavior via manipulation of elements in a graphical user interface (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data as well as an attempt to limit the claims to a particular technological environment).
In summary of the above, any purported benefits do not stem from the claimed steps themselves (e.g., as further argued in Remarks, p. 18), but from performing the claimed abstract idea and applying it to a particular context. This does not move the claims outside the realm of abstract ideas, and thus the claims do not reflect an improvement upon the relevant technology.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Step 2B (see Remarks, p. 18-19) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive, as Applicant merely asserts that the combination of elements (facilitating control over the creation of, training of, management of, presentation of, user interaction with, and utilization of AI agents and AI agent memories amount to unconventional steps confining the claims to a particular useful application). However, as established previously, a majority of these recited steps are themselves abstract ideas, and they do not amount to significantly more because the additional elements themselves are primarily field-of-use limitations describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result, and the remaining additional elements are extra-solution activities that are generic/well-known operations of computers. Thus, separately or in combination, the claims are still found to be abstract at Step 2B.
For at least the aforementioned reasons and those set forth in the 101 rejection below, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 May 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 20-23) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references (and thus new combination of references) being used in the current rejection.
Furthermore, with respect to Rasoolinejad in Remarks, p. 21, Applicant solely argues that Rasoolinejad does not disclose the claimed features that Rasoolinejad was previously used to reject (e.g., “labelling the memory with one or more labels corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory”, “assigning a weight to each of the one or more labels of the memory”, and “organizing the memory in the accessible database containing a plurality of memories by the one or more labels or the weight of at least one of the one or more labels of the memory”. This argument is unpersuasive for at least the reasons set forth in the 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim recites “organizing the memory in the accessible database containing the plurality of memories further by the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels of the memory”. However, independent claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon, already recites “organizing the memory by the one or more labels or the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels of the memory”. Thus, claim 7 does not properly narrow claim 1, e.g., in the instance where claim 1 organizes the memory in the accessible database by the weight of the memory.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Applicant may consider amending claim 7 to recite that claim 7 is performed in the situation where the memory is organized “by the one or more labels”, and thus subsequently organizing the memory “further by the weight of the memory”, e.g., “where when the memory is organized by the one or more labels for at least one of the one or more labels of the memory, further organizing the memory in the accessible database containing the plurality of memories [[further]] by the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels of the memory”, or some other equivalent language.
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 1-2, 5-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites “prior to storing the memory, determining whether to keep the memory based on a type of the memory”. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim further recites “labelling the memory with one or more labels corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory”. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. It may also be viewed as a form of “tagging” or indexing, which had previously been found to be directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (see, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017) at p. 18).
The claim further recites “assigning a weight to the memory for each of the one or more labels of the memory”. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim further recites “organizing the memory by the one or more labels or the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels of the memory”. Similarly, dependent Claim 7 recites “organizing the memory in the accessible database containing the plurality of memories further by the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels of the memory”. This also encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Lastly, the claim recites “controlling how the memory is utilized by the AI agent based on the one or more labels and assigned weight of at least one of the one or more labels”. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation “wherein the assigned weight of the at least one or more labels of the memory controls at least one [various activities]” encompasses managing personal behavior, which falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent Claim 2 recites “where determining whether keeping the memory is further determined based on user input”. Dependent Claim 3 recites “where the labelling of the memory is performed using user input”. These encompass managing personal behavior, which falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Additionally, such limitations encompass an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment (on the part of the user), which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claim 9 recites “generating a filtered set of memories by filtering the plurality of memories based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memories; and displaying the filtered set of memories”. Filtering content has previously been found to be a long-standing, well-known method of organizing human behavior4, i.e., such a limitation falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claim 21 recites “identifying a set of stored memories associated with a particular user”. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim further recites “displaying…a subset of the set of stored memories associated with the particular user; displaying the subset of stored memories associated with the particular user…”. These also encompass managing personal behavior, which falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Because the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, because the claims cover managing personal behavior or relationships / interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the idea. The independent claims recite various computing components, including “AI agent”, “user interface” for displaying data, and “database”. However, these are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). See also, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017), finding that the claimed mobile interface did little more than provide a generic technological environment to allow users to access information, and thus did not amount to significantly more, i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation.
The claims recite further insignificant field-of-use limitations, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result. Such additional elements that are insignificant field-of-use limitations include that the received data pertains to a “triggering event” (independent claim 1), where the triggering event may be an email communication (dependent claim 13), or a communication with the AI agent (dependent claim 14); that determining whether to keep the memory is based on a “type” of the memory (independent claim 1), including that such a step is further determined based on a category of the triggering event (dependent claims 13-14); that the activities being controlled by the assigned weight of the at least one of more labels corresponds to “at least one of (i) how the memory is displayed to a user with one or more other memories, (ii) resolving conflicts between the memory and the one or more other memories, (iii) how the memory is used for training, or (iv) how to define a relationship between the memory and the one or more other memories” (independent claim 1); that the storing is performed on “all or a portion of the memory” upon “determin[ing] that the memory is to be kept”; that the determination of keeping the memory and labelling of the memory are (further) based on “user input” (dependent claims 2 and 5); that the labelling of the memory is “performed automatically by the AI agent” (dependent claim 6); that “the weight of the memory…automatically decreases over time” (dependent claim 8); that a plurality of memories are filtered based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memories (dependent claim 9); that the one or more attributes are based on a physical location referred to in the memory (dependent claim 10), one or more persons involved in or referred to in the memory (dependent claim 11), or a date and time, an event and/or an activity referred to or associated with the memory (dependent claim 12); that the set of stored memories are associated with a particular user, each memory comprising a separate stored memory, and that the displaying of the set of stored memories associated with the particular user at least visually distinguishes the set of stored memories by memory type and using different colors for displaying the set of stored memories based on memory type (dependent claim 21).
The claims further recite insignificant extra-solution activities, including “detecting a triggering event for generating and storing a memory” (independent claim 1); “storing…the memory in an accessible database” (independent claim 1); and displaying data (dependent claims 9 and 21).
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea.
With respect to the well-understood, routine, and conventional elements, as stated previously above, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements reciting the use of various computing components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (or even components slightly narrower than generic computer components).
Additionally, with regards to the claims’ recitation of receiving and transmitting/sending data, storing (and retrieving) data, and displaying data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities within the computing realm. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (“Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” with respect to the receiving data and displaying data steps; “Storing and retrieving data in memory” with respect to the “storing” data step, as well as the “displaying” step, as such displayed information was implicitly retrieved; “Electronic recordkeeping” with respect to the “storing” data steps; and “Presenting offers and gathering statistics” with respect to the “displaying” step).
Even as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not contain any additional elements that amount to significantly more. The focus of the claims is on determining whether to keep the memory or not, and then performing some basic additions to modifying that data, including labelling, assigning weights, and then organizing the data based on the labels and/or weights. However, the clams do not contain any concrete embodiment to that idea, but instead are directed to the resulting goal or effect, rather than a particular manner of achieving such steps.
The presence of the claimed computing elements does not alter this analysis. Simply stating that a computer performs the claimed mental steps, does nothing more than attempt to limit the claims to a particular technological environment. Thus, when removing the computing elements, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claims to a particular solution to an identified problem by a computer aside from invoking the computer as a tool to be used in executing the claimed steps, i.e., applying the abstract idea with a computer. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea (see Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at p. 7-8, citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), slip op. 12 (“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under § 101”)).
As a whole, the claims do not go beyond stating the relevant functions in general terms, without limiting them to a technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computing technologies. Neither stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” with a computer, nor limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is enough for patent eligibility. Stating the abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result.
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasoolinejad (“Rasoolinejad”) (US 2021/0304000 A1), in view of Liu et al. (“Liu”) (US 6,839,680 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Rasoolinejad teaches A method for controlling the creation, management, modification, display, and utilization of AI-memories for an Al agent, the method comprising:
detecting a triggering event; in response to detecting the triggering event, generating a memory for the Al agent; … storing … all or a portion of the memory in an accessible database (Rasoolinejad, [0029], where the AI agent 200 receives data from its environment 100, and event data is sent to the event memory unit 222. See Rasoolinejad, [0033], where after tagging, events can be stored in a common or a category-specific memory space, implying that “a memory for the AI agent” was “generat[ed]”, as claimed), wherein storing the memory includes:
labelling the memory with one or more labels corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory (Rasoolinejad, [0032-0034], where events are tagged by the categorical network QC 2220 or another specialized tagging algorithm, and stored. Rasoolinejad’s “category” corresponds to the claimed “label”, as the “category” had been classified based on identifying category specific features (Rasoolinejad, [0030]) (i.e., “corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory data structure”). See also Rasoolinejad, [0035-0036], where after a new observation (event) is tagged by the categorical network QC 2220, it is passed to an event network QE 2221, which determines how unique the event is compared to other events in that category (the “uniqueness” also corresponding to a “label”));
assigning a weight to each of the one or more labels of the memory (Rasoolinejad, [0035-0036], where. A less similar event gets a higher uniqueness index from the event network QE 2221 (i.e., the disclosed “index” corresponding to the claimed “weight”). A categorical significance index for an event is also utilized (this index also corresponding to the claimed “weight”). Thus, an index (i.e., “weight”) was assigned for each of the category and uniqueness labels of the event (i.e., “for each of the one or more labels of the memory data structure”)); and
organizing the memory in the accessible database containing a plurality of memories by the one or more labels or the weight of at least one of the one or more labels of the memory (Rasoolinejad, [0038], where events with a higher significance index and uniqueness index (i.e., “by the one or more labels and/or the weight of the memory”) are stored in a more accessible part of the memory, where this priority depends on the memory structure. Note that the plural “events” stored within the memory (structure) corresponds to the claimed “plurality of memories”); and
controlling how the memory is utilized by the Al agent based on the one or more labels and assigned weight of at least one of the one or more labels … (Rasoolinejad, [0036-0041], where the categorical significance index and event’s uniqueness index (called importance factors here) determine the store, recall, decay, and delete routine utilized. Note that “categorical significance index” and “uniqueness index” imply the claimed “labels” and “weight”; see above rejection on “assigning a weight to each of the one or more labels of the memory”).
Rasoolinejad does not appear to explicitly teach prior to storing the memory, determining whether to keep the memory based on a type of the memory; [storing], if it determined that the memory is to be kept, [all or a portion of the memory]; [and] wherein the assigned weight of the at least one or more labels of the memory controls at least one of (i) how the memory is displayed to a user with one or more other memories, (ii) resolving conflicts between the memory and the one or more other memories, (iii) how the memory is used for training, or (iv) how to define a relationship between the memory and the one or more other memories.
Liu teaches prior to storing the memory, determining whether to keep the memory based on a type of the memory; [and storing], if it determined that the memory is to be kept, [all or a portion of the memory] (Liu, [62:63-67]-[64:1-46], where some web events are not useful to record and thus are not recorded (see, e.g., Liu, [2:62-67]-[3:1-13], where certain web activities, e.g., simple, fast clickthroughs may not be tracked in a web event record because they do not usefully reflect a user’s interest). Such web events include ignoring short-term activities, aggregated web activities, and other filtration of data including privacy control, URL pattern-based filtration, keyword-based filtration, etc. See Liu, [23:64-67]-[24:1-6], where aggregation queue 722 stores a set of web event records (which implicitly, did not include the data that were not recorded in the web event record prior to storage; see, e.g., Liu, [62:63-67]-[64:1-46] above)); [and]
wherein the assigned weight of the at least one or more labels of the memory controls at least one of (i) how the memory is displayed to a user with one or more other memories, (ii) resolving conflicts between the memory and the one or more other memories, (iii) how the memory is used for training, or (iv) how to define a relationship between the memory and the one or more other memories (Liu, [27:24-56], where user-category complex table stores data for user-category (UC) complexes 203, which includes user ID, category ID, weight, deviation, weight against categories, weight against population, and trend. The weight describes the average weight of the user’s interest in the category specified by category ID; the weight against categories measure of how important the specified category is for the user relative to other categories (weight against categories); and the weight against population measures how important the specified category is for the user relative to all other users. The trend describes the shape or slope of the user’s interest in the category over a time period. See also, e.g., Liu, [5:1-17], where combined category weighting information for a collected period describes in detail the user’s degree of interest across a number of categories, where from the weighted category information, various statistical measures are derived such as mean category weight over the period, etc. A trend pattern is also extracted which describes whether the user’s interest in the category is increasing, decreasing, or constant. The summarized representation of the category weights of the time period can be stored, and best captures the changes in the user’s interest across a number of categories. Thus, these weights are used to aggregate user’s interests over time, e.g., relationships to one or more other memories of the same categories, thereby corresponding to the claimed “how to define a relationship between the memory and the one or more other memories”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad and Liu (hereinafter “Rasoolinejad as modified”) with the motivation of pruning irrelevant data from memory, which reduces storage requirements (i.e., greater storage efficiency) as well as preserving privacy (see, e.g., Liu, [2:62-67]-[3:1-13] and [11:42-57]), and enabling users to derive a certain behavior and pattern that can be used to predict user reactions in the future, e.g., using this information for marketing purposes (see, e.g., Liu, [27:12-23]).
Regarding claim 2: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where determining whether keeping the memory is further determined based on user input (Liu, [63:43-67]-[64:3-20], where users can filter web activity data from being recorded according to user preference, including, e.g., based on privacy settings, URL-pattern-based filtration, and keyword-based filtration, which can be set by users who do not want URLs to be recorded and shared, certain document titles, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad and Liu with the motivation of enabling users to configure their privacy settings, thereby protecting certain data they specified from being collected (Liu, [63:43-59]).
Regarding claim 6: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where the labelling of the memory is performed automatically by the Al agent (Rasoolinejad, [0032-0034], where events are tagged by the categorical network QC 2220 or another specialized tagging algorithm, and stored. Rasoolinejad’s “category” corresponds to the claimed “label”, as the “category” had been classified based on identifying category specific features (Rasoolinejad, [0030]) (i.e., “corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory data structure”). See also Rasoolinejad, [0035-0036], where after a new observation (event) is tagged by the categorical network QC 2220, it is passed to an event network QE 2221, which determines how unique the event is compared to other events in that category (the “uniqueness” also corresponding to a “label”. See Rasoolinejad, [FIG. 1] and [FIG. 2], where the agent 200 includes memory unit 220, which houses event memory 222, which includes the categorical network QC 2220 and event network QE 2221 (thus, categorical network QC 2220 and event network QE 2221 corresponding to the labelling being performed automatically by “the AI agent” as claimed).
Regarding claim 7: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, the method further comprising;
organizing the memory in the accessible database containing the plurality of memories further by the weight of at least one of the one or more labels of the memory (Rasoolinejad, [0038], where events with a higher significance index and uniqueness index (i.e., “by the one or more labels and/or the weight of the memory”) are stored in a more accessible part of the memory, where this priority depends on the memory structure. Note that the plural “events” stored within the memory (structure) corresponds to the claimed “plurality of memories”).
Regarding claim 8: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 7, where the weight of at least one of the one or more labels of the memory automatically decreases over time (Rasoolinejad, [0036], where the categorical significance index (the “weight” corresponding to the “category” label) and event’s uniqueness index (the “weight” corresponding to the “uniqueness” label) decay over time).
Regarding claim 11: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where the one or more attributes is based on one or more persons involved in or referred to in the memory (Liu, [24:7-27], where each web event 900 contains a user identifier 902 relating to a user. See Liu, [27:24-67]-[28:1-12], where users are associated with categories and user-weight categories representing the average weight of the user’s interest in the category).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad and Liu with the motivation of generating user profiles for individualized information gathering and thus targeted marketing.
Regarding claim 12: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where the one or more attributes is based on a date and time, an event and/or an activity referred to or associated with the memory (Rasoolinejad, [0032], where an event is a sequence of a phenomenon that occurred in time which are closely related to each other, e.g., “writing a letter”, “putting the letter in an envelope”, etc.).
Regarding claim 13: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where determining whether to keep the memory is further determined based on a category of the triggering event, the triggering event being an email communication (Liu, [63:19-67]-[64:1-46], where certain types of activities/events are ignored and not recorded in a web event record, including short-term activities, accesses to the user’s home page, multiple occurrences of the same web activity (which is aggregated), certain URLs, etc. (i.e., “based on a category of the triggering event”). See Rasoolinejad, [0032-0035], where an event is a sequence of a phenomenon that occurred in time which are closely related to each other, e.g., “writing a letter”, “putting the letter in an envelope”, etc., events having a particular category).
Although Rasoolinejad as modified does not appear to explicitly state that the triggering event is “an email communication” as claimed, the claimed invention does not distinguish over the prior art because the differences in the claim limitations and the prior art’s disclosure are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The claimed steps would have been performed the same regardless of the specific data involved (I.e., an email communication event as claimed, or some other event data). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ2d 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have referred to the teachings of Rasoolinejad as modified in making the claimed invention, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 14: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where determining whether to keep the memory is further determined based on a category of the triggering event, the triggering event being a communication with the Al Agent (Liu, [63:19-67]-[64:1-46], where certain types of activities/events are ignored and not recorded in a web event record, including short-term activities, accesses to the user’s home page, multiple occurrences of the same web activity (which is aggregated), certain URLs, etc. (i.e., “based on a category of the triggering event”). See Rasoolinejad, [0032-0035], where an event is a sequence of a phenomenon that occurred in time which are closely related to each other, e.g., “writing a letter”, “putting the letter in an envelope”, etc., events having a particular category).
Although Rasoolinejad as modified does not appear to explicitly state that the triggering event is “a communication with the AI agent” as claimed, the claimed invention does not distinguish over the prior art because the differences in the claim limitations and the prior art’s disclosure are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The claimed steps would have been performed the same regardless of the specific data involved (I.e., a communication with the AI agent event as claimed, or some other event data). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ2d 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have referred to the teachings of Rasoolinejad as modified in making the claimed invention, because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Claims 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasoolinejad (“Rasoolinejad”) (US 2021/0304000 A1), in view of Liu et al. (“Liu”) (US 6,839,680 B1), in further view of Deng et al. (“Deng”) (US 2019/0370600 A1).
Regarding claim 5: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach where the labelling of the memory is performed using user input.
Deng teaches where the labelling of the memory is performed using user input (Deng, [0018-0020], where the GUI may provide an interface for a user to construct, validate, and use a model generated by the machine-learning system based on the data set. The data set may include multiple records. The records may include values in multiple categories. A user may designate/label certain grouped records in a particular target category and possible target values as “wins”, e.g., the user indicating records relating to sales engagements that resulted in sales are “wins” and may be part of the “desired target class”, while records relating to sales engagements that did not result in sales may be “losses” and may be part of the “less desired target class”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad as modified and Deng with the motivation of enabling users to manually tag events, thereby potentially leading to greater accuracy in machine learning analysis/modeling.
Regarding claim 9: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 7, but does not appear to explicitly teach the method further comprising: generating a filtered set of memories by filtering the plurality of memories based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memories; and displaying the filtered set of memories on a user interface.
Deng teaches generating a filtered set of memories by filtering the plurality of memories based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memories; and displaying the filtered set of memories on a user interface (Deng, [0035-0041], where certain categories or values of the categories of the data set 108 can be selected and/or removed from consideration. See Deng, [0030], where the GUI may present visual representations of outputs/values of a selected category of the data set that was indicated by a user via the graphical user interface (see, e.g., Deng, [0087-0090] and [0093]), e.g., a graph illustrating distribution of incomes at several levels across different eye colors (see, e.g., Deng, [0041]) (i.e., “displaying the filtered set of memories on a user interface”). See Rasoolinejad in claim 1 above with respect to “memories”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad as modified and Deng with the motivation of enabling users to explore the population of web visitors using an intuitive user interface (see, e.g., Liu, [17:5-11]).
Regarding claim 10: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach where the one or more attributes is based on a physical location referred to in the memory.
Deng teaches where the one or more attributes is based on a physical location referred to in the memory (Deng, [0037], where records may be restricted to certain geographic areas, implying that there is a physical location with respect to the record attributes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad as modified and Deng with the motivation of narrowing the types of information/categories that may be relevant, thereby increasing the relevancy of the events.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasoolinejad (“Rasoolinejad”) (US 2021/0304000 A1), in view of Liu et al. (“Liu”) (US 6,839,680 B1), in further view of Van Os et al. (“Os”) (US 2021/0004897 A1).
Regarding claim 21: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the method further includes: subsequent to storing the memory, identifying a set of stored memories associated with a particular user; displaying, on a user interface, a subset of the set of stored memories associated with the particular user; displaying the subset of stored memories associated with the particular user by at least visually distinguishing the subset of stored memories by memory type and by using different colors for displaying the subset of stored memories based on memory type.
Os teaches wherein the method further includes: subsequent to storing the memory, identifying a set of stored memories associated with a particular user; displaying, on a user interface, a subset of the set of stored memories associated with the particular user; displaying the subset of stored memories associated with the particular user by at least visually distinguishing the subset of stored memories by memory type and by using different colors for displaying the subset of stored memories based on memory type (Os, [0029], where the system displays a graphical representation of a user account associated with an activity of a first type and an activity of a second type, the first type having a first color range and the second type having a second color range different from the first color range. See, e.g., Os, [0564], where transfers of different types use different colors. See Rasoolinejad and Liu in claim 1 above with respect to the data corresponding to “memories” and “memory type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Rasoolinejad as modified and Os with the motivation of providing an intuitive user interface for navigating through data, thereby improving usability, functionality, and communication with the computer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
27 August 2026
1 BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) at p. 17-18.
2 This was also ironically reiterated in Desjardins, which Applicant is fond of referencing.
3 Note that this is not stating the claims need to explicitly state the improvement, only that the present claims do not adequately reflect any purported improvement.
4 See Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at p. 7.
Prosecution Insights