DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the amendment and response filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 11 and 22 have been canceled.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/14/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Arguments and Assertions by the Applicant
Applicant’s arguments received 05/13/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, 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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakobson et al. (USPGP 2022/0398340 A1), hereinafter JAKOBSSON, in view of Paciello (USPGP 2023/0009454 A1), hereinafter PACIELLO, and further in view of Worth (USPGP 2024/0289639 A1), hereinafter WORTH.
Claims 1, 12:
JAKOBSSON as shown below discloses the following limitations:
executing an Al agent…the AI agent including an identifier, an AI model that determines behavior of the AI agent, a value matrix that defines attributes of the Al agent, and a contextual memory associated with the Al agent, wherein the contextual memory is configured to store contextual data relating to experiences of the Al agent in least one of the execution environment and/or at least one other execution environment, (see at least paragraphs 0023-0025, 0414, 0288, 0290, 0291, 0060, 0178, 0503; Figure 15 as well as associated and related text)
JAKOBSSON does not specifically disclose:
whereby the experiences are transferable with the Al agent across multiple execution environments;
in response to activity of the AI agent within the execution environment, selecting a subset of the at least one biotags;
However, PACIELLO, in at least paragraphs 0042, 0094, 0212, Figures 11, 13 as well as associated and related text, claims 9 and 10 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON with the technique of PACIELLO because, “Various types of characters are used in a wide range of applications. In video games, virtual characters are animated and interact with a variety of different characters and game environments. In movies and television, animated characters appear in both fully animated scenes as well as hybrid scenes that include live action footage with computer-generated image (CGI) objects and characters composited together. In business, customer services are provided by digital and synthetic agents or assistants. In robotics, the behavior of interactive robots may be driven by a character model. Furthermore, the range of use cases for digital characters continues to expand.
Each use case has its own requirements and demands, but there are certain limitations to existing technologies that apply to most if not all use cases. For example, providing realistic responses to external stimuli plays a large part in making an individual character believable. Existing approaches typically rely on a human (e.g., a programmer and/or an animator) to individually define a character's response to each stimulus. This is incredibly time consuming and subject to the personal preferences and biases of the human, leading to differences in response for the same character depending on the human that defined the response. Furthermore, individual characters constructed in this way cannot scale efficiently, let alone allow for the creation of characters with individualized personalities, nonverbal body cues and speech for which a response has not been defined.” (PACIELLO: paragraphs 0003-0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but WORTH as shown does:
… in an execution environment
deriving at least one biotag from the contextual data, wherein the at least one biotag is a data structure that encapsulates experiences of the agent over time;
changing attributes of the execution environment based on the subset of the at least one biotag.
See at least paragraphs 0026, 0031, 0071, 0073, 0114, 0154, and 0156. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO with the technique of WORTH because, “In the recent past, technological advancements in various management systems have increasingly used computational methods based on machine learning. Some implementations of such management systems use digital learning agents that operate under set rules and manipulate one or more systems to navigate a given environment and/or maximize identified rewards. While such learning agents have been tested in artificially created environments, implementation of learning agents in real world environments has been challenging due to inability of the agents to face dynamic needs of the environment.] Accordingly, there exists a need to automatically adapt a behavior of a learning agent to optimize and/or improve performance in an environment, including real world environments.” (WORTH: paragraphs 0002-0003). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14:
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO/WORTH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. JAKOBSSON further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the identifier is recorded on a decentralized ledger.
wherein the identifier is a non-fungible token (NFT).
See at least Figure 15 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 4, 15:
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO/WORTH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PACIELLO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein changing attributes of the execution environment includes at least one of, presenting targeted content to the AI agent in the at least one execution environment, changing behavior of assets in the execution environment, and/or providing a product purchase interface to the AI agent in the execution environment.
See at least paragraphs 0072 and 0210. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON with the technique of PACIELLO because, “Various types of characters are used in a wide range of applications. In video games, virtual characters are animated and interact with a variety of different characters and game environments. In movies and television, animated characters appear in both fully animated scenes as well as hybrid scenes that include live action footage with computer-generated image (CGI) objects and characters composited together. In business, customer services are provided by digital and synthetic agents or assistants. In robotics, the behavior of interactive robots may be driven by a character model. Furthermore, the range of use cases for digital characters continues to expand. Each use case has its own requirements and demands, but there are certain limitations to existing technologies that apply to most if not all use cases. For example, providing realistic responses to external stimuli plays a large part in making an individual character believable. Existing approaches typically rely on a human (e.g., a programmer and/or an animator) to individually define a character's response to each stimulus. This is incredibly time consuming and subject to the personal preferences and biases of the human, leading to differences in response for the same character depending on the human that defined the response. Furthermore, individual characters constructed in this way cannot scale efficiently, let alone allow for the creation of characters with individualized personalities, nonverbal body cues and speech for which a response has not been defined.” (PACIELLO: paragraphs 0003-0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 5-7, 16-18:
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO/WORTH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PACIELLO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the contextual memory comprises a plurality of cards, each card containing data representing an interaction or attribute of a specific asset.
wherein the data on the cards includes at least one of intrinsic information, dynamic information, and event information related to the specific asset.
wherein the non-fungible token (NFT) is used to verify at least one of the authenticity and/or ownership of the Al agent.
See at least paragraphs 0211-0212. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON with the technique of PACIELLO because, “Various types of characters are used in a wide range of applications. In video games, virtual characters are animated and interact with a variety of different characters and game environments. In movies and television, animated characters appear in both fully animated scenes as well as hybrid scenes that include live action footage with computer-generated image (CGI) objects and characters composited together. In business, customer services are provided by digital and synthetic agents or assistants. In robotics, the behavior of interactive robots may be driven by a character model. Furthermore, the range of use cases for digital characters continues to expand.
Each use case has its own requirements and demands, but there are certain limitations to existing technologies that apply to most if not all use cases. For example, providing realistic responses to external stimuli plays a large part in making an individual character believable. Existing approaches typically rely on a human (e.g., a programmer and/or an animator) to individually define a character's response to each stimulus. This is incredibly time consuming and subject to the personal preferences and biases of the human, leading to differences in response for the same character depending on the human that defined the response. Furthermore, individual characters constructed in this way cannot scale efficiently, let alone allow for the creation of characters with individualized personalities, nonverbal body cues and speech for which a response has not been defined.” (PACIELLO: paragraphs 0003-0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 8, 19:
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO/WORTH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PACIELLO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the value matrix includes attributes selected from the group consisting of: skills, appearance, knowledge, performance metrics, and user-defined characteristics.
See at least paragraphs 0211-0212. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON with the technique of PACIELLO because, “Various types of characters are used in a wide range of applications. In video games, virtual characters are animated and interact with a variety of different characters and game environments. In movies and television, animated characters appear in both fully animated scenes as well as hybrid scenes that include live action footage with computer-generated image (CGI) objects and characters composited together. In business, customer services are provided by digital and synthetic agents or assistants. In robotics, the behavior of interactive robots may be driven by a character model. Furthermore, the range of use cases for digital characters continues to expand.
Each use case has its own requirements and demands, but there are certain limitations to existing technologies that apply to most if not all use cases. For example, providing realistic responses to external stimuli plays a large part in making an individual character believable. Existing approaches typically rely on a human (e.g., a programmer and/or an animator) to individually define a character's response to each stimulus. This is incredibly time consuming and subject to the personal preferences and biases of the human, leading to differences in response for the same character depending on the human that defined the response. Furthermore, individual characters constructed in this way cannot scale efficiently, let alone allow for the creation of characters with individualized personalities, nonverbal body cues and speech for which a response has not been defined.” (PACIELLO: paragraphs 0003-0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 9, 20:
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO/WORTH discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PACIELLO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the contextual memory is dynamically updated based on the interactions and activities of the AI Agent within at least one of the execution environment and at least one other execution environment.
See at least paragraphs 0210-0212. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON with the technique of PACIELLO because, “Various types of characters are used in a wide range of applications. In video games, virtual characters are animated and interact with a variety of different characters and game environments. In movies and television, animated characters appear in both fully animated scenes as well as hybrid scenes that include live action footage with computer-generated image (CGI) objects and characters composited together. In business, customer services are provided by digital and synthetic agents or assistants. In robotics, the behavior of interactive robots may be driven by a character model. Furthermore, the range of use cases for digital characters continues to expand.
Each use case has its own requirements and demands, but there are certain limitations to existing technologies that apply to most if not all use cases. For example, providing realistic responses to external stimuli plays a large part in making an individual character believable. Existing approaches typically rely on a human (e.g., a programmer and/or an animator) to individually define a character's response to each stimulus. This is incredibly time consuming and subject to the personal preferences and biases of the human, leading to differences in response for the same character depending on the human that defined the response. Furthermore, individual characters constructed in this way cannot scale efficiently, let alone allow for the creation of characters with individualized personalities, nonverbal body cues and speech for which a response has not been defined.” (PACIELLO: paragraphs 0003-0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 10, 21:
The combination of JAKOBSSON/PACIELLO discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. PACIELLO further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one execution environment includes at least one of virtual reality, augmented reality, and gaming platforms.
See at least paragraph 0056. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of JAKOBSSON with the technique of PACIELLO because, “Various types of characters are used in a wide range of applications. In video games, virtual characters are animated and interact with a variety of different characters and game environments. In movies and television, animated characters appear in both fully animated scenes as well as hybrid scenes that include live action footage with computer-generated image (CGI) objects and characters composited together. In business, customer services are provided by digital and synthetic agents or assistants. In robotics, the behavior of interactive robots may be driven by a character model. Furthermore, the range of use cases for digital characters continues to expand.
Each use case has its own requirements and demands, but there are certain limitations to existing technologies that apply to most if not all use cases. For example, providing realistic responses to external stimuli plays a large part in making an individual character believable. Existing approaches typically rely on a human (e.g., a programmer and/or an animator) to individually define a character's response to each stimulus. This is incredibly time consuming and subject to the personal preferences and biases of the human, leading to differences in response for the same character depending on the human that defined the response. Furthermore, individual characters constructed in this way cannot scale efficiently, let alone allow for the creation of characters with individualized personalities, nonverbal body cues and speech for which a response has not been defined.” (PACIELLO: paragraphs 0003-0004). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Chayna Sarkar et al. “Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technology Driven Modern Drug Discovery and Development.” (2023 Jan 19). Retrieved online 02/11/2026. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9916967/
Paul L. Borril et al. “Agent-Based Modeling: The Right Mathematics for the Social Sciences?” (July 2010). Retrieved online 02/11/2026. https://faculty.sites.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/archive/tesfatsi/ABMRightMath.PBLTWP.pdf
Foreign Art:
BLIVEN et al. (Platform For Gaming Engine Smart Contract System, Has Integration Platform That Is Programmed With Execution Framework That Is Common To Gaming Engine And To Contract System To Integrate Smart Contract Services With Gaming Engine.” (WO 2023/287969 A1)
ERMOLENKO et al. “Method For Providing Artificial Intelligence Character Model With Goal-oriented Behavior, Involves Transmitting Response To Client-side Computing Device By Processor In Which Device Presents Response To User.” (WO 2023/212162 A1)
DONNART. “Artificial Operator Behavior Generating Method For E.g. Aircraft, Involves Using Human Factors Modeled By Cognitive State Of Simulated Operator To Influence Decomposition Of Mission Into Tree Structure Of New Tasks.” (WO 2023/006624 A1)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/13/2026 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights