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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on provisional Application Nos. 63/647,875; 63/647,884; 63/647,880; 63/647,790; 63/647,866; and 63/647,892, all filed on 15 May 2024.
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 18 September 2025, Applicant elected without traverse Group 1 containing claims 1-14 for examination (see “Response to Restriction Requirement” on page 2). Furthermore, claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10-14 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 3-4 and 15-20 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. Claim 21 is new. Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-14, and 21 are presently pending in the application, of which claim 1 is presented in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 recites “detecting a triggering event for generating and storing a memory data structure; determining whether to keep the memory data structure…; storing…all or a portion of the memory data structure in an accessible database”.
Because the language states “for” generating and storing a memory data structure, it is unclear whether this is an active step in which the memory data structure has been generated.
If one were to interpret “for” generating and storing a memory data structure, in which “generating” and “storing” have implicitly occurred, this does not make sense within the context of the claims, as the storing of the memory data structure occurs at the third step (i.e., storing the memory data structure in an accessible database).
Therefore, one cannot interpret “for” to imply that the generating and storing of the memory data structure has already occurred (meaning that the memory data structure is stored twice, first in response to the “detecting a triggering event” and in the third step of storing in an accessible database).
However, if one were to interpret “for” as meaning an intended use, then it is unclear how the system “determin[es] whether to keep the memory data structure”, as such a memory data structure was not yet generated (due to the lack of an active “generating” step).
Therefore, the metes and bounds of “for” cannot be ascertained, i.e., one cannot consistently apply the same interpretation with respect to “generating and storing”, as if one were to take the interpretation that this is implied, the later “storing” step (step 3 of the claim) would not make sense; yet if one were to take the interpretation that this was simply an intended use/result, the second step of “determining whether to keep the memory data structure” becomes unclear, as the memory data structure has not yet been generated.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 recites “wherein determining whether keeping the memory the memory data structure is determined based on a type of the memory data structure”
Applicant appears to utilize “memories” and “memory data structure” interchangeably, which partially lends to this confusion. See, e.g., Specification, [0057]. However, this is meant to refer to a type of “memory” or “experience (see, e.g., Specification, [0066, where “The knowledge bases of the AI agents can also includes memories (sometimes referred to herein as ‘memory data structures’) that define previous interactions and experiences of the AI agents, including communications involving the AI agents”).
What is further confusing is if there is no mention of a “data structure” with respect to the memory, why applicant would choose to use “memory” interchangeably with “memory data structure” is confusing. The metes and bounds of “memory” versus “memory data structure” cannot be ascertained. A “memory data structure” can broadly be understood to mean a data structure, e.g., some sort of data organization, that comprises those memories, e.g., experiences, previous interactions, etc. However, is unclear what is meant by a “type” of memory data structure, e.g., whether this is referring to a “type” of experience/previous interaction (also called “memory”), or whether it is referring to a “type” of data structure, such as a table (one type of data structure), a tree (another type of data structure), etc. However, given that the Specification only appears to distinguish the different types of memories/experiences/interactions (see, e.g., Specification, [0201]), but appears to be silent on different types of data structures (e.g., tables, trees, etc.), it is unclear what is meant by a “type of memory data structure” as claimed.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 recites “assigning a weight to the memory data structure…” and “organizing the memory data structure by…the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels”. Similarly, dependent claim 7 recites “organizing the memory data structure in the accessible database by the weight of the memory”.
Firstly, there is a lack of antecedent basis issue with this rejection.
Secondly, even if applicant were to amend the claim language to “organizing the memory data structure…by the weight of the memory data structure”, such a limitation also would be unclear, e.g., it does not make sense that the memory data structure is organized by the weight of itself.
Thirdly, it is unclear how a single weight is assigned to the memory data structure “for each of the one or more labels” of the memory data structure, e.g., does this mean that there are multiple weights? Yet the following claim language states “the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels” (indicating that there is only a single weight).
Thus, the metes and bounds of “assigning a weight to the memory data structure for each of the one or more labels of the memory data structure” and “organizing the memory data structure…by the one or more labels and/or the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels” cannot be ascertained.
The rest of the claims are rejected for at least by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites “organizing the memory data structure in the accessible database by the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels”. However, this limitation was already claimed in claim 1, which stated “organizing the memory data structure in the accessible database by the one or more labels and/or the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels”. Because the independent claim may also broadly encompass the “and” aspect, therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 7 cannot be ascertained with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 8-9 are rejected for at least by virtue of their dependency on claim 7, and for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites “filtering the plurality of memory data structures based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memory data structures”. There is a lack of antecedent basis issue for such a limitation. Therefore, it is also unclear what is precisely meant by this limitation.
It is also unclear what is the purpose of such a limitation, as such a limitation is not utilized, e.g., it simply claims filtering without any additional steps or understandable purpose.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites “subsequent to storing the memory data structure…”. Because there were issues raised with respect to this step of “storing the memory data structure”, it cannot be ascertained whether this was in reference to the first “storing” (i.e., after detecting a triggering event) or the second “storing” (in the third step of claim 1).
Additionally, the claim recites “stored memories” throughout, as well as “each memory comprising a separate stored memory data structure”. As indicated in Claim 1 above, the Specification utilizes “memory” and “memory data structure” interchangeably. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “memory” and “memory data structure” are. Thus, if one were to replace the concept of “memory data structure” with “memory”, as in the Specification, the above limitation would read “each memory comprising a separate stored [memory]”, which does not make sense.
Lastly, the claim recites “determining to display the set of stored memories associated with the particular user”. It is unclear what is meant by such a limitation, e.g., it appears as though not all of the memories associated with a user is to be displayed, yet the Specification and claims are absent on any sort of determination being made. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by such a limitation.
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 “determining whether to keep the memory data structure”. 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 data structure with one or more labels corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory data structure”. 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 data structure for each of the one or more labels of the memory data structure”. This encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Lastly, the claim recites “organizing the memory data structure by the one or more labels and/or the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels”. Similarly, dependent Claim 7 recites “organizing the memory data structure in the accessible database by the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels”. This also encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claim 2 recites “where determining whether keeping the memory data structure is further determined based on user input”. Dependent Claim 3 recites “where the labelling of the memory data structure 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 “filtering the plurality of memory data structures based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memory data structures”. Filtering content has previously been found to be a long-standing, well-known method of organizing human behavior1, 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” and “determining to display the set of stored memories associated with the particular user”. These encompass an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. 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 “data structures”, “AI agent”, 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)).
The claims recite 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 data structure is based on a “type” of the memory data structure (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 storing is performed on “all or a portion of the memory data structure” upon “determin[ing] that the memory data structure is to be kept”; that the determination of keeping the data structure and labelling of the memory data structure are based on “user input” (dependent claims 2 and 5); that the labelling of the memory data structure is “performed automatically by the AI agent” (dependent claim 6); that “the weight of the memory data structure…automatically decreases over time” (dependent claim 8); that a plurality of memory data structures are filtered based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memory data structures (dependent claim 9); that the one or more attributes are based on a physical location referred to in the memory data structure (dependent claim 10), one or more persons involved in or referred to in the memory data structure (dependent claim 11), or a date and time, an event and/or an activity referred to or associated with the memory data structure (dependent claim 12); that the set of stored memories are associated with a particular user, each memory comprising a separate stored memory data structure, 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 data structure” (independent claim 1); “storing…the memory data structure in an accessible database” (independent claim 1); and “displaying the set of stored memories associated with the particular user” (dependent claim 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 step; “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 data structure 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 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasoolinejad (“Rasoolinejad”) (US 2021/0304000 A1), in view of Deng et al. (“Deng”) (US 2019/0370600 A1), in further view of Kuruma et al. (“Kuruma”) (US 2021/0357695 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Rasoolinejad teaches A method for controlling the creation and management of Al memory data structures for an Al agent, the method comprising:
detecting a triggering event for generating and storing a memory data structure (Rasoolinejad, [0029], where the AI agent 200 receives data from its environment 100, and event data is sent to the event memory unit 222);
storing … all or a portion of the memory data structure in an accessible database (Rasoolinejad, [0033], where after tagging, events can be stored in a common or a category-specific memory space), wherein storing the memory data structure includes:
labelling the memory data structure with one or more labels corresponding to one or more attributes of the memory data structure (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 the memory data structure for each of the one or more labels of the memory data structure (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 data structure in the accessible database by the one or more labels and/or the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels (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).
Rasoolinejad does not appear to explicitly teach determining whether to keep the memory data structure, wherein determining whether keeping the memory data structure is determined based on a type of the memory data structure; [and storing], if it is determined that the memory data structure is to be kept, [all or a portion of the memory data structure].
Deng teaches determining whether to keep the memory data structure, wherein determining whether keeping the memory data structure is determined based on a type of the memory data structure (Deng, [0068-0071], where certain branches/nodes belonging to a particular category (i.e., “type”) are pruned. See, e.g., Deng, [0037], where those records meeting the target criteria are retained).
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 Deng (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 search and training efficiency (e.g., less data to search/process).
Rasoolinejad as modified does not appear to explicitly teach [storing], if it is determined that the memory data structure is to be kept, [all or a portion of the memory data structure].
Kuruma teaches [storing], if it is determined that the memory data structure is to be kept, [all or a portion of the memory data structure] (Kuruma, [0049-0050], where the feature vector analysis unit collects the feature vectors associated with their correct answer labels, and identifies feature vectors to be deleted and added according to a predetermined determination value, e.g., based on a correct answer label. Feature vectors to be deleted are ultimately deleted).
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 Kuruma (hereinafter “Rasoolinejad as modified”) with the motivation of efficiently and appropriately refining a learning dataset used for training (Kuruma, [0012]), e.g., by not storing data that is not involved in training after determining such data is not relevant (thus avoiding storage reorganization requirements).
Regarding claim 2: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where determining whether keeping the memory data structure is further determined based on user input (Deng, [0036], where the machine-learning system obtains input from the user when determining which categories to remove from consideration, and one or more categories from the data set may be selected to be removed from consideration).
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 configure the training data.
Regarding claim 5: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where the labelling of the memory data structure is performed using user input (Deng, [0020], where there may be a “target criteria” related to the specific task of the machine-learning model, where through the GUI, the user inputs the target criteria, and records that meet the target criteria are referred to as “wins”, i.e., labeled as part of a “desired target class”. A user may indicate that certain records are “wins” and may be part of the “desired target class”, while indicating other records as “losses”, i.e., 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.
Regarding claim 6: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where the labelling of the memory data structure 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 data structure in the accessible database by the weight of the memory for at least one of the one or more labels (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).
Regarding claim 8: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 7, where the weight of the memory data structure for at least one of the one or more labels 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 9: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 7, the method further comprising filtering the plurality of memory data structures based on at least one label associated with the plurality of memory data structures (Deng, [0036], where certain categories or values of the categories of the data set 108 can be removed from consideration. See Deng, [0034], where the data set 108 may be selected from one or more available data sets).
Although Deng does not appear to explicitly state that data set 108 comprises a plurality of data sets, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Deng to include a plurality of data sets, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, given that no new and unexpected result is produced here (i.e., the system would simply iterate through each of the plurality of data sets to produce multiple filtered data sets, as opposed to one filtered data set).
Regarding claim 10: Rasoolinejad as modified teaches The method according to Claim 1, where the one or more attributes is based on a physical location referred to in the memory data structure (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/accuracy of the learning/training set.
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 data structure (Deng, [0036], where target criteria may involve certain demographic information, including annual income, eye color, and age).
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/accuracy of the learning/training set.
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 data structure (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 data structure is further determined based on a category of the triggering event, the triggering event being an email communication (Deng, [0068-0071], where certain branches/nodes belonging to a particular category (i.e., “type”) are pruned. See, e.g., Deng, [0037], where those records meeting the target criteria are retained. 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).
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/accuracy of the learning/training set.
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 data structure is further determined based on a category of the triggering event, the triggering event being a communication with the Al Agent (Deng, [0068-0071], where certain branches/nodes belonging to a particular category (i.e., “type”) are pruned. See, e.g., Deng, [0037], where those records meeting the target criteria are retained. 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).
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/accuracy of the learning/training set.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasoolinejad (“Rasoolinejad”) (US 2021/0304000 A1), in view of Deng et al. (“Deng”) (US 2019/0370600 A1), in further view of Kuruma et al. (“Kuruma”) (US 2021/0357695 A1), in further view of Gardner et al. (“Gardner”) (US 2006/0074833 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 data structure, identifying a set of stored memories associated with a particular user, each memory comprising a separate stored memory data structure; determining to display the set of stored memories associated with the particular user; displaying the set of stored memories associated with the particular user and by at least visually distinguishing the set of stored memories by memory type and by using different colors for displaying the set of stored memories based on memory type.
Gardner teaches wherein the method further includes: subsequent to storing the memory data structure, identifying a set of stored memories associated with a particular user, each memory comprising a separate stored memory data structure (Gardner, [0228], where an entity’s private data sources may be gathered and accessed which are relevant to one or more knowledge domains. See Rasoolinejad, [0033], where events are stored in category-specific memories (i.e., “each memory comprising a separate stored memory data structure”));
determining to display the set of stored memories associated with the particular user (Gardner, [0177] and [FIG. 13], where a search result is selected, and a hierarchy of an ontology (i.e., “set of stored memories”) may be displayed in a hierarchical pane 1303, where upon selection of a concept, a hierarchical and may initially focus on a portion of the ontology surrounding a selected search result. See how the search result was expanded from the initial search results seen in, e.g., Gardner, [FIG. 12] (thus, the user selection results in the system “determining to display the set of stored memories”)); displaying the set of stored memories associated with the particular user and by at least visually distinguishing the set of stored memories by memory type and by using different colors for displaying the set of stored memories based on memory type (Gardner, [0191], where different colors may be used to represent different data sources, or other attributes. See Rasoolinejad, [0033], where events are stored in category-specific memories (i.e., “storied memories”)).
Although Gardner does not appear to explicitly state that the sources/ontologies are associated with the user, Gardner discloses in [0228] that the entity’s private sources may be mined for information. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Gardner such that only an entity’s private sources are displayed with the motivation of enabling users to narrow the data to just a small subset, e.g., their (own) preferred data.
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 Gardner with the motivation of providing an intuitive user interface for navigating through data, thereby improving usability, functionality, and communication with the computer.
Conclusion
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, NEVEEN ABEL-JALIL can be reached at (571)270-0474. 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 2152
12 December 2025
1 See Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at p. 7.