Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 18/842,332, filed on 8/28/2024 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/067361 filed 06/27/2023
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12,15 are pending in this application, cancelled claims 13-14.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 8/28/2024
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 8/28/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for CHINA foreign priority under
35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GERMANY application # 10 2022 206 664.2 filed 06/30/2022
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 1-12,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,15, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
As to claim 1, A method for simulating a conversation using an electronic computing device with input device, an output device, a simulation controller, and a number of virtual participants, the method comprising:
“providing each virtual participant using a text analyzer of the electronic device content from user text or generated text input of a virtual participant;
“producing a response thereto using an artificial intelligence (AI); and
“returning the response to the simulation controller so a user stipulates a topic for a simulation controller using the input device;
“selecting a participant at the start of the simulation to forward the user input in text formn;
“analyzing the user input with a text analyzer of the selected virtual participant;
“transmitting the data of the analysis to a neural network with an AI;
“working out a reaction with the AI;
“transmitting the reaction to text generator of the selected virtual participant;
:”distributing the reaction in text form as a response to the simulation controller; and
“selecting a further participant with the simulation controller to continue the simulation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example providing each virtual participant, producing a response, returning the response, selecting a participant , analyzing the user input , transmitting the data , distributing the reaction in text , in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mere receiving, selecting, distributing the data and/or data collection
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of providing each virtual participant, producing a response, returning the response, selecting a participant , analyzing the user input , transmitting the data , distributing the reaction in text, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 1-2, page 12-19, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition fig 1-2, page 12-19 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
As to claim 2, “further elaborates monitoring the simulation”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 3, further elaborates “wherein the output device carries out the simulation monitoring feedback by the human user”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 4, further elaborates” monitoring the simulation with the electronic computing device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 5, further elaborates storing data generated by simulation monitoring and/or feedback from the human user in a discussion memory”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 6, further elaborates “further comprising using the data from the discussion memory as training data for the AI”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 7, further elaborates “wherein selection of a virtual participant by the simulation controller is random”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 8, further elaborates “wherein the participant configuration is effected at least partly on the basis of de Bono’s theory”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 9, further elaborates “wherein the participant configuration is effected at least partly on the basis of the TRIZ theory”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 10, further elaborates “which is as effected as part of an interactive method for carrying out a discussion via the input device and the output device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 11, further elaborates “wherein the text generator comprises a language model”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 12, further elaborates “wherein the text generator uses GPT-3”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 13-14 (cancelled)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s)1-2,4,7,10-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by WU et al., (hereafter Wu), WO2019/000326A1 published Jan 2019
As to claim 1, Wu teaches a system which including “a method for simulating a conversation using an electronic computing device with input device, an output device, a simulation controller, and a number of virtual participants, the method comprising (Wu: fig 1-2, 0001, 0062, – Wu teaches chatbot is used in simulate users conversations particularly using input and output devices connected in a network environment)
PNG
media_image1.png
242
159
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“providing each virtual participant using a text analyzer of the electronic device content from user text or generated text input of a virtual participant” (Wu: 0062, fig 9, 0094-0095 – Wu teaches user interface (element 400) , displaying chat window element 420 and inputting message and/or text element 440, and Wu teaches text analysis for example user message is analyzed as detailed in 0094-0095) ;
PNG
media_image2.png
289
277
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“producing a response thereto using an artificial intelligence (AI)” (Wu: 0001,0003, fig 17, 00179-00182 – Wu teaches artificial intelligence chatbot that including generating responses in automated chatting of the respective messages) ; and
PNG
media_image3.png
152
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“returning the response to the simulation controller so a user stipulates a topic for a simulation controller using the input device” (Wu: fig 4-6, 0052, 0071 – Wu teaches question and answer chat window allows to stipulates topic for example user in personality or psyche as an example “travel related topic” (0052) and list of target character(s) and/or topic via chat window;
PNG
media_image4.png
303
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
334
227
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
214
217
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“selecting a participant at the start of the simulation to forward the user input in text form” (Wu: fig 2, 0038-0039 – Wu teaches user participating in conversation particularly using chatbot as user input voice or text form);
PNG
media_image7.png
192
207
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“analyzing the user input with a text analyzer of the selected virtual participant” (Wu: fig 9, 0093-0095 – Wu teaches analyzing sentiment, tendencies to the test questions);
PNG
media_image8.png
201
168
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“transmitting the data of the analysis to a neural network with an AI” (Wu: 0053, 0092,00148, fig 14 – Wu teaches neural network with artificial intelligent in training data);
PNG
media_image9.png
180
185
media_image9.png
Greyscale
:working out a reaction with the AI” (Wu: 0001);
“transmitting the reaction to text generator of the selected virtual participant” (Wu: fig 16-17, 00162,00179---180 – Wu teaches generating text responses in automated chatting)
PNG
media_image3.png
152
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
:”distributing the reaction in text form as a response to the simulation controller” (Wu: fig 9, 0097-0099 – Wu teaches text sentiment, personality test analyzing and finally generating test answers as distributing reaction); and
“selecting a further participant with the simulation controller to continue the simulation” (Wu: 0001, 00144 – Wu teaches answers in the highest question answer pair is selected as response to the message).
As to claim 2,Wu teaches “further comprising monitoring the simulation” (0001, fig 1-2).
As to claim 4, Wu disclosed “further comprising monitoring the simulation with the electronic computing device” (Wu: fig 1, 0033)
PNG
media_image1.png
242
159
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Wu disclosed “wherein selection of a virtual participant by the simulation controller is random” (Wu: 0029, 0050,fig 1)
As to claim 10, Wu disclosed “which is as effected as part of an interactive method for carrying out a discussion via the input device and the output device” (Wu: 0034-0036,0042, fig 4-7).
As to claim 11, Wu disclosed “wherein the text generator comprises a language model” (Wu: fig 3, 0055-0056,0092).
PNG
media_image10.png
237
162
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claims 3,5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al., (hereafter Wu), WO2019/000326A1 published Jan 2019 in view of Jonnalagadda et al., (hereafter Jonn), US Pub. No. 2021/0201144 published Jul, 2021
As to claim 3, Wu teaches “wherein the output device carries out the simulation monitoring by the human user” (Wu: fig 1-2,0001), however, Wu does not teach “monitoring feedback by the human user”. On the other hand, Jonn disclosed “monitoring feedback by the human user” (Jonna: 0012,0099 – Jonna teaches feedback from the user received in to generate a transition for the conversation exchange responsive to the feedback, further Jonna teaches both raining and feedback data as part of collectively model data fig 5D, element 548.
PNG
media_image11.png
226
238
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention artificial intelligence enhancements in automated conversations of Jonn et al., into generating responses in automated chatting of Wu et al., because both Wu, Jonna teaches AI driven automated chatting conversations (Wu: fig 4-7, Abstract; Jonna: Abstract, 0066) and they both are from the same endeavor. Because both Wu, Jonna teaches AI driven automated chatting conversations, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly providing users feedback to the AI modeler element 540 in building and updating training data (Jonna: 0099) thereby improves overall quality and reliability of the AI driven messages, conversations particularly natural language processing with AI learning (Jonna: 0010-0011)
As to claim 5, the combination of Wu, Jonna disclosed “ storing data generated by simulation monitoring and/or feedback from the human user in a discussion memory” (Jonna: fig 1, element 110 data storage, fig 30B, 0193, 0099 – feedback data is used in various models stored in the model database element 550)
As to claim 6, the combination of Wu, Jonna disclosed “further comprising using the data from the discussion memory as training data for the AI” (Wu: fig 10 training data element 1012,00102,00109).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al., (hereafter Wu), WO2019/000326A1 published Jan 2019 in view of Dittmar, Sonia Ann (hereafter Ann) AU 2002100383A4 published June, 2002
As to claim 8, Wu teaches “wherein the participant configuration (Wu: fig 1-2, Abstract), however, Wu does not disclose “participant configuration is effected at least partly on the basis of de Bono’s theory”. On the other hand, Ann disclosed “participant configuration is effected at least partly on the basis of de Bono’s theory” (Ann: Abstract, page 1-2, fig 1-2 – Ann teaches de Bono’s theory particularly six thinking hats for example in page 1-2)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention thinking hats game of Ann into generating responses in automated chatting of Wu et al., because that would have allowed users of Wu to structure group participants into their natural communication styles, identifying highly analytical person (from participants) thereby improves parallel thinking among participants think together at any given point toward in exchanging of messages (Ann: page 1-2)
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al., (hereafter Wu), WO2019/000326A1 published Jan 2019 in view of Van et al., (hereafter Van) US Pub. No. 2014/0075004 published Mar, 2014
As to claim 9, Wu does not disclose “wherein the participant configuration is effected at least partly on the basis of the TRIZ theory”, although Wu teaches participant configuration (Wu: fig 1-2). On the other hand, Van disclosed “TRIZ” theory including generated suggestions based on the concepts to think in certain direction toward innovation (Van: 0723)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention fuzzy concept mapping, competitive analysis study of Van et al., into generating responses in automated chatting of Wu et al., because that would have allowed users of Wu to use innovation gap analysis including checking, technology value prediction (Van: Abstract)
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al., (hereafter Wu), WO2019/000326A1 published Jan 2019 in view of Galley et al., (hereafter Galley), US Pub. No. 2021/0192140 published Jun, 2021
As to claim 12, Wu does not disclose “wherein the text generator uses GPT-3”, although Wu teaches receiving, generating messages (Wu: fig 17, fig 1-2). On the other hand, Galley disclosed “wherein the text generator uses GPT-3” (Galley: Abstract, fig 1, fig 3, 0021,0074 – Galley teaches GPT-1,GPT-2 and GPT-3 using machine learning model may include and/or configured to use GPT-2 and GPT-3 models)
t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention controllable grounded text generation, particularly using machine learning model (Galley: fig 1) into generating responses in automated chatting of Wu because that would have allowed users of Wu to generating text particularly GPT-2/GPT-3 in grounding interface by the machine learning model to access grounding source related input text that including training of machine learning model thereby improves generating text that has a style and flow i.e., predicts and generates human-like text based on context (Galley: 0020,0023-0025), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system
As to claim 13-14 (cancelled)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. WO2019/000326A1.
b. US Pub. No. 2021/0201144
c. US Pub. No. 2014/0075004
d. US Pub. No. 2021/0192140
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights