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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The specification references the reference sign 114C using the terms “mouse 114C” and “114C inputs” in ¶23, which is not shown in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 114N in FIG. 1, 225 in FIG. 2A, and 297 in FIG. 2B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Referring to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: “generating an originality score for the entered content based on the detected user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS and further based on the monitored imports to the virtual environment”. The specification discloses generating the originality score at a high level and does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of the claimed genus. The limitation is broad and functional and encompasses any originality score generation that uses any detected user inputs and monitored imports. The specification discloses potential non-limiting embodiments that recite the functional result of generating an originality score such as aggregation of originality sub-scores, generation based on user inputs to I/O devices and monitored imports, generation based on internet activity, generation based on user clipboard activity, and generation based on user proximity to the IHS/IO devices of the IHS (abstract, ¶4, ¶5, ¶50, ¶54, ¶55, ¶58), but does not describe how those inputs are combined, weighted, or evaluated and provides no concrete rules, thresholds, or scoring logic of the operating mechanism responsible for showing possession of the full scope of generating the originality score within the breadth of the limitation.
Referring to claims 14 and 18, the claims recite the limitations: “generate an originality score for the entered content based on the detected user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS and further based on the monitored imports to the virtual environment” and “monitor imports to the virtual environment”. These limitations are similar to the limitations recited in claim 1, accordingly claims 14 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 1.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 depend on rejected claims 1, 14, and 18 and do not overcome the deficiency raised in the rejection of their parent claims. The rejection of the dependent claims based on their dependency may be in addition to any rejections raised against the dependent claims themselves.
Referring to claim 4, the claim recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring Internet activity by the user and further generating the originality score based on Internet activity by the user”. The specification discloses the functional limitation of further generating the originality score based on the internet activity at a high level and does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of the claimed genus. The limitation is broad and functional and encompasses any further generation of the originality score based on the user’s monitored internet activity. The specification discloses potential non-limiting embodiments that recite the functional result of further generating the originality score based on the user’s monitored internet activity such as monitoring the users internet activity in the IHS for internet activity associated with artificial intelligence tools or VPNs, cross referencing the user’s pasted content with their internet activity in the IHS to identify potential pasted sources, (¶41, ¶44, ¶46, ¶50), but provides no steps/explanation/concrete algorithm of the operating mechanism responsible for showing possession of the full scope of further generating the originality score based on the user’s monitored activity within the breadth of the limitation.
Claim 5 depends on rejected claim 4, and does not overcome the deficiency raised in the rejection of the parent claim. The rejection of the dependent claim based on its dependency may be in addition to any rejections raised against the dependent claim itself.
Referring to claim 17, the claim recites: “The IHS of claim 14, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the IHS to monitor Internet activity by the user, and wherein the originality score is further generated based on Internet activity by the user”. This claim is similar to claim 4, accordingly the claim is rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 4.
Referring to claim 5, the claim recites: “The method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting the originality score based on a source of the detected imports to the virtual environment, where the source is identified in the monitored Internet activity”. The specification discloses the functional limitation of adjusting the originality score based on a source of the detected imports, where the source is monitored in the internet activity at a high level and does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of the claimed genus. The functional limitation is broad and encompasses any adjustment of the originality score based on a source of the detected imports, wherein the source is identified in the monitored internet activity. The specification discloses only a clipboard as a potential non-limiting embodiment for the broadly claimed genus of the detected imports in the monitored internet activity used for adjusting the originality score (45-48). Secondly, the specification provides no steps/explanation/concrete algorithm of the operating mechanism responsible for showing possession of the full scope of adjusting the originality score based on a source of the detected imports to the virtual environment, where the source is in the monitored internet activity within the breadth of the limitation.
Referring to claim 7, the claim recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the originality score is generated in part based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices in order to generate the entered content”. The specification discloses in ¶5: “the originality score is generated in part based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices in order to generate the entered content”. The specification discloses this limitation at a high level and does not reasonably convey the full scope of the claimed genus. The functional limitation is broad and encompasses any “generation in part” of the originality score based on detected user inputs to the I/O device, provides no cited embodiments for how to do so, provides no steps/explanation/concrete algorithm for the operating mechanism responsible for showing possession of the full scope of how the originality score is “generated in part” based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices in order to generate the entered content. Further the specification does not disclose any mechanism for classifying/determining expected human inputs for the associated limitation of “the originality score is generated in part based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices” to reasonably convey possession of the functional result across the full scope of the claim.
Referring to claim 8, the claim recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a type of attestation certificate to be generated based on the originality score relative to originality score thresholds for generating different types of supported attestation certificates. The limitation of “different types of supported attestation certificates” encompasses a broad genus, however the specification primarily discloses attestation certificates validating the content was human generated and attestation certificates validating the content was generated by a user of the information handling system and doesn’t show possession for the broad genus.
Claims 9 and 10 depend on rejected claim 8 and do not overcome the deficiency raised in the rejection of their parent claim. The rejection of the dependent claims based on their dependency may be in addition to any rejections raised against the dependent claims themselves.
Referring to claim 12, the claim recites: “The method of claim 11, wherein the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS”. The functional limitation is broad and encompasses any further generation of the originality score based on the monitored location of the user to the information handling system. The specification discloses the functional limitation at a high level reciting the additional limitation verbatim in 5 and provides no steps/explanation/concrete algorithm of the operating mechanism responsible for showing possession of the full scope of further generation of the originality score based on the monitored location of the user to the information handling system, and therefore does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of the claimed genus.
Claim 13 depends on rejected claim 12, and does not overcome the deficiency raised in the rejection of the parent claim. The rejection of the dependent claim based on its dependency may be in addition to any rejections raised against the dependent claim itself.
Referring to claim 13, the claim recites: “The method of claim 12, wherein the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content”. The functional limitation is broad and encompasses any further generation of the originality score based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of any of the users I/O devices. The specification discloses the functional limitation at a high level reciting the additional limitation verbatim in 5 and provides no steps/explanation/concrete algorithm of the operating mechanism responsible for showing possession of the full scope of further generation of the originality score based on based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content , and therefore does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of the claimed genus.
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 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 17 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.
Referring to claim 4, the claim recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring Internet activity by the user and further generating the originality score based on Internet activity by the user”. The claim recites the limitation of “further generating the originality score” after the claim it depends on previously recited generating an originality score. It is unclear whether “further generated” requires regenerating the originality score, modifying a previously generated score, generating an additional originality score or originality sub-score, or merely including monitored internet activity as an additional input during the initial originality score generation. Consequently, the metes and bounds of this limitation are not reasonably certain.
Referring to claim 17, the claim recites: “The IHS of claim 14, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the IHS to monitor Internet activity by the user, and wherein the originality score is further generated based on Internet activity by the user”. This claim is similar to claim 4, accordingly the claim is rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 4.
Claim 5 depends on rejected claim 4, and does not overcome the deficiency raised in the rejection of the parent claim. The rejection of the dependent claim based on its dependency may be in addition to any rejections raised against the dependent claim itself.
Referring to claim 5, the claim recites: “The method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting the originality score based on a source of the detected imports to the virtual environment, where the source is identified in the monitored Internet activity”. The claim recites the limitation of “adjusting the originality score” after the claim it depends on (claim 1) previously recited generating an originality score. It is unclear whether the adjustment occurs during generation of the originality score and at what specific step or after generation of the originality score and at what specific timeframe. Consequently, the scope for the temporal context of this limitation is not reasonably certain.
Referring to claim 7, the claim recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the originality score is generated in part based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices in order to generate the entered content”. The limitation “generated in part” is indefinite because it does not clearly specify what portion of the originality score is generated by the detected user inputs, how that portion is measured, or how the claimed “relative to expected human inputs” limitation operates in relation to the score generation step. In addition, the limitation: “in order to generate the entered content” is grammatically unclear creating uncertainty as to whether it modifies the user inputs or the score generation. Lastly, the claim recites the claim element: “the I/O device” which lacks antecedent basis.
Referring to claim 12, the claim recites: “The method of claim 11, wherein the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS”. The claim recites the limitation of “the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS” after the claim it depends on (claim 1) previously recited generating an originality score. It is unclear whether “further generated” requires regenerating the originality score, modifying a previously generated score, generating an additional originality score or originality sub-score, or merely including proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS as an additional input during the initial originality score generation. Consequently, the metes and bounds of this limitation are not reasonably certain.
Claim 13 depends on rejected claim 12, and does not overcome the deficiency raised in the rejection of the parent claim. The rejection of the dependent claim based on its dependency may be in addition to any rejections raised against the dependent claim itself.
Referring to claim 13, the claim recites: “The method of claim 12, wherein the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content”. The claim recites the limitation of “the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content” after the claim it depends on (claim 1) previously recited generating an originality score. It is unclear whether “further generated” requires regenerating the originality score, modifying a previously generated score, generating an additional originality score or originality sub-score, or merely including proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS as an additional input during the initial originality score generation. Secondly, the claim recites the limitation: “a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content”. Neither the claim nor the specification provides criteria for identifying which I/O device used by the user is the first. Therefore, it is unclear whether “first of the user I/O devices” refers to the first device the user chronologically used, the primary input device, the first listed device, or one of many devices in the information handling system. Consequently, the metes and bounds of this limitation are not reasonably certain.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Referring to claim 1, claim 14, and claim 18
Step 1 (Claim 1) – YES: “process”
The claim recites a method for attested content creation by an Information Handling System.
Step 1 (Claim 14) – YES: “machine”
The claim recites an Information Handling System comprising one or more processors and one or more memory devices.
Step 1 (Claim 18) – YES: “article of manufacture”
The claim recites a computer-readable storage device having instructions stored thereon for attested content creation by an IHS (Information Handling System), wherein execution of the instructions is done by one or more processors.
Step 2A Prong I (Claims 1/14/18) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites the abstract idea of collecting information (“detecting entry of content”), analyzing it to evaluate originality/authorship (“generating an originality score for entered content”), and outputting a certification/attestation decision (“when the originality score indicates the entered content was human-generated, generating an attestation certificate for validation of the entered content as human-generated”).
These limitations fall into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: observations in the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The claim further recites the limitations: “generating an originality score … based on the detected user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS; generating an attestation certificate for validation of the entered content as human-generated.”. These limitations fall into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: evaluation/judgement in the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claims 1/14/18) - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. The additional elements of launching a virtual environment for attested content creation by a user of the IHS, the environment providing one or more applications for content creation using one or more I/O devices of the information handling system does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements do not improve computer functionality (see M.P.E.P. 2106.05(a). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine (see M.P.E.P. 2106.05(b)). The additional elements do not provide a particular transformation (see M.P.E.P. 2106.05(c)) and are simply performed using the computer as a tool (see M.P.E.P 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B (Claims 1/14/18) - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself?
NO. The additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception. They are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art.
WURC (well-understood routine and conventional) Assessment:
1. launching a virtual environment for attested content creation by a user of the information handling system – WURC, a virtual environment within an information handling system for attested content creation is well established and routine. The claim does not specify a particular platform or novel computing environment architecture.
2. the environment providing one or more applications for content creation using one or more I/O devices of the information handling system – WURC, content creation within a virtual environment using I/O devices is well-established and routine functionality.
Berkheimer Standard: Under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), an applicant may overcome a WURC rejection by providing evidence (e.g., technical comparisons, performance metrics, implementation details) that the claimed elements are not routine in the art. The specification provides no such evidence. There are:
• No performance metrics or efficiency gains
• No technical details distinguishing the claimed approach from conventional attested content creation
• No evidence that the combination achieves a non-obvious or non-conventional result
Conclusion: The additional elements are WURC and do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The combination of launching an environment + the environment providing an application that interacts with I/O devices is a generic virtual environment.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 1, Claim 14, and Claim 18 are INELIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2–13 are dependent claims that add limitations to Claim 1, claims 15-17 are dependent claims that add limitations to Claim 14, claims 19-20 are dependent claims that add limitations to claim 18. Because Claim 1, claim 14, and claim 18 are ineligible, all dependent claims that do not cure the § 101 deficiency are likewise ineligible.
Referring to claim 2, claim 15, and claim 19
Step 1 (Claim 2) – YES: “process”
Step 1 (Claim 15) – YES: “machine”
Step 1 (Claim 19) – YES: “article of manufacture”
Step 2A Prong I (Claims 2/15/19) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception? NO.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 2 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since claim 2 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 15 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since claim 15 depends on claim 14 and claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 19 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since claim 19 depends on claim 18 and claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 3, claim 16, and claim 20
Step 1 (Claim 3) – YES: “process”
Step 1 (Claim 16) – YES: “machine”
Step 1 (Claim 20) – YES: “article of manufacture”
Step 2A Prong I (Claims 3/16/20) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claims recite: “monitoring file operations by the user of the IHS”; This limitation falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: observations in the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claims 3/16/20) - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 3, claim 16, and claim 20 are INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 4 and claim 17
Step 1 (Claim 4) – YES: “process”
Step 1 (Claim 17) – YES: “machine”
Step 2A Prong I (Claims 4/17) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claims recite: “monitoring Internet activity by the user and further generating the originality score based on Internet activity by the user.”. This limitation falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: observations in the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claims 4/17) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 4 and Claim 17 are INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 5 is a dependent claim that adds limitations to Claim 4. Because Claim 4 is ineligible, all dependent claims that do not cure the § 101 deficiency are likewise ineligible.
Referring to claim 5
Step 1 (Claim 5) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 5) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting the originality score based on a source of the detected imports to the virtual environment, where the source is identified in the monitored Internet activity”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claims 4/17) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 5 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 6
Step 1 (Claim 6) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 6) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring of user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS comprises monitoring at least one of keyboard entries and mouse inputs.”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: observation in the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claims 4/17) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 6 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 7
Step 1 (Claim 7) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 7) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the originality score is generated in part based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices in order to generate the entered content.”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claim 7) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 7 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 8
Step 1 (Claim 8) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 8) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a type of attestation certificate to be generated based on the originality score relative to originality score thresholds for generating different types of supported attestation certificates.”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claim 8) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 8 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 9
Step 1 (Claim 9) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claims 2/15/19) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception? NO.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 9 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since claim 9 depends on claim 8 and claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 10
Step 1 (Claim 10) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 10) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception? NO.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 10 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since claim 10 depends on claim 8 and claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 11
Step 1 (Claim 11) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 11) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 10, further comprising, once the virtual environment has been launched, monitoring a location of the user relative to the IHS.”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: observation in the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claim 11) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 11 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 12
Step 1 (Claim 12) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 12) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 11, wherein the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS.”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claim 12) – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 12 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Referring to claim 13
Step 1 (Claim 13) – YES: “process”
Step 2A Prong I (Claim 13) - Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
YES. The claim recites: “The method of claim 12, wherein the originality score is further generated based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content.”. This claim falls into the abstract category of Mental Processes specifically: the sub-category of observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A Prong II (Claim 13) - Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO. There are no additional elements in the claim.
FINAL CONCLUSION: Claim 13 is INELLIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2024/0411528 A1 to ZIOLKOWSKI; CHRISTOPHER et al. (hereinafter “Ziolkowski”).
Regarding claim 1
Ziolkowski discloses A method for attested content creation by an Information Handling System (IHS) (Ziolkowski discloses a computing environment having a plurality of virtual computers including desktops and servers, wherein the plurality of virtual computers may be implemented as a user device (¶221, ¶222). Ziolkowski further discloses the use of a plurality of user devices including a desktop computer having processors capable of executing instructions to process data, and memory that is configured to store data for later retrieval and use including instructions for a content editor (¶69-¶72). Ziolkowski further discloses that the content editor instructions when executed by the user device processor provide the content editor program, which is software providing features for editing content that may be a cloud based or a remote editor (¶72). Ziolkowski further discloses in 227 that the plurality of user device processors can include artificial intelligence accelerators, microcontrollers, and application-specific integrated circuits. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶228 that the memory can include random-access memory, read only memory, cache memory, and portable memory. Ziolkowski further discloses that the plurality of virtual computers includes an interface (¶226) configured for receiving input and ouput in the form of: “visual input components (e.g., cameras)”, “auditory input components (e.g., microphones)”, “motion input components (e.g., mice, gesture controllers, finger trackers, eye trackers, or movement sensors)”, and “position sensors (e.g., terrestrial or satellite-based position sensors such as those using the Global Positioning System)” (¶229). Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶230 that the plurality of virtual computers includes components such as “one or more power units (e.g., batteries, capacitors, power harvesters, or power supplies) that provide operational power”, and “one or more busses to provide intra-device communication”. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶93 that the computer peripherals connected to the plurality of virtual computers such as a keyboard or mouse “may include a sensor (e.g., a microphone, a camera, or a motion sensor, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope, or force sensor)”.), the method comprising: launching a virtual environment for attested content creation by a user of the IHS (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶72 that the content editor instructions local to a user device, that when executed by a user device processor cause the processor to provide the content editor program. Ziolkowski further discloses the content editor can be cloud based or remote, including word processing applications like GOOGLE DOCS (¶72-¶73).), the environment providing one or more applications for content creation using one or more I/O devices of the IHS (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶90 that the content editor receives edits to the content from human interface devices including mice, keyboards and microphones.); once the virtual environment has been launched, monitoring user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS and monitoring imports to the virtual environment (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶90 that the content editor receives edits to the content from human interface devices including mice, keyboards, touchscreens, and microphones. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶90 that detecting editing of content through a human interface device can be identified using API’s that detect various forms of input such as keypresses of a keyboard. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶146 monitoring imports into the content editor by detecting: when a paste operation occurs, when content is dragged into the content editor, or when an import is made into the content editor via a menu selection operation.); detecting entry of content to an application of the virtual environment (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶86 that the content editor determines when an edit to content has been made which includes: creating new content, removing existing content, or modifying existing content.); generating an originality score for the entered content based on the detected user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS and further based on the monitored imports to the virtual environment (Ziolkowski discloses calculating a significance score wherein the score can be calculated based on a sum of weights or scores of operational results. Ziolkowski further discloses the sum of weights or scores associated with the significance score can be customized by user preference wherein “the significance of manual edits is compared to the significance of generative artificial intelligence edits”. Ziolkowski further discloses content editors have API’s that can detect input from a human interface device such as keypresses of a keyboard and clicking of a mouse, which can be considered a manual edit (¶90, ¶91). Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶101 that calculating the significance score can include performing an operation and using the associated output such as determining whether the manual edit includes pasting.); and when the originality score indicates the entered content was human-generated, generating an attestation certificate for validation of the entered content as human- generated (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶102: “the significance score is based on a distance traveled in embedding space as a result of the edit ... Where the edit is to more than one word, embedding space can still be used. In an example, the words can be clustered into a prior cluster and a new cluster”. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶256: “Where a human authorship cluster is larger than and encompassing of the cluster having artificial authorship, then it may be determined that the region has human authorship”. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶45 that when edits to the content meet a threshold of significance, that at an authorship token can be generated if not already present. Ziolkowski further discloses hashing both the region of the content where the edit was performed and the authorship token, and signing both the hash of the edited content region and authorship token (¶285, ¶286). Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶293 verifying the generated authorship tokens by providing the hash to a service that stores the tokens, where the service provides the associated token with the hash (if it exists).)
Regarding claim 14 and claim 18, the claims recite similar limitations specified in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring of imports to the virtual environment comprises monitoring activity of a clipboard of an operating system of the IHS (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶148 analyzing an import as an edit by using an artificial agent that follows a URL to identify the content being imported based on content being imported from the clipboard. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶47 that when content is pasted, authorship tokens can be removed/suppressed. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶55: “when content is being pasted from another file (e.g., part of a same or different codebase), then the modification date of the pasted-content source file is checked”. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶141 a cut or copy operation can be detected when content is being exported. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶146 detecting a paste operation as a form of importing content into the content editor. Ziolkowski further discloses detecting when these operations occur includes using an API of the operating system which the content editor is running in (¶141, ¶146.)
Regarding claim 15 and claim 19, the claims recite similar limitations specified in claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 3
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring of imports to the virtual environment comprises monitoring file operations by the user of the IHS (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶342 determining a second authorship for a region of a manual edit in a content editor, responsive to a predetermined event such as a user uploading a file.)
Regarding claim 16 and claim 20, the claims recite similar limitations specified in claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 4
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring Internet activity by the user and further generating the originality score based on Internet activity by the user (Ziolkowski discloses that imports can be detected in the content editor via user input, and that content that is imported includes detecting when a paste operation is occurring (¶146). Ziolkowski further discloses classifying imports as edits and analyzing the significance by analyzing the source of authorship, which may be from a website in which case the URL can be analyzed to determine the author. Ziolkowski further discloses that an artificial agent using a large language model can follow the URL and analyze the contents of the URL to determine the authorship (¶148).).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations specified in claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 5
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting the originality score based on a source of the detected imports to the virtual environment, where the source is identified in the monitored Internet activity (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶72 the content editor can be a cloud based or remote editor. Ziolkowski further discloses attributing authorship based on a conversation initiated between a human user of the content editor and an ai chatbot, wherein the chatbot can be a third-party service linked to the content editor. Under broadest reasonable interpretation a person of ordinary skill would understand a remote based content editor in communication with a third-party chatbot service communicates over the internet, even if the ai chatbot service runs locally on the user’s device. Ziolkowski further discloses the content editor can retrieve conversation history and recursively identify authorship for each region of content by comparing the regions of content with each successive chat message in the conversation history to determine a threshold of significance of whether the differences are significant to attribute the regions to a first or second author based on the result (¶187-¶206). Ziolkowski discloses that the same factors used to determine the significance of the associated author in the conversation history are the same factors that may be included in the calculation of the significance score (see ¶101, ¶102, and ¶256) such as: “the distance in embedding space between a cluster of tokens of the messages can be used. Thus, the messages that are closest together in embedding space can be determined to be related” (¶195), “determining whether a difference between the respective message and a next message after the respective message, passes a threshold of significance (¶204)”, and “The relative difference between one or more points or one or more clusters of points can be used to determine authorship” (¶199).)
Regarding claim 6
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring of user inputs to the I/O devices of the IHS comprises monitoring at least one of keyboard entries and mouse inputs (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶87 that a manual edit is an edit made by a human, and determining authorship of an edit includes determining that a human user using the content editor made the edit. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶90 determining the content editor received an edit from a human interface device including keyboards and mice, wherein operating systems which can run the content editors have API’s that detect user input from a human interface device. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶91 that the content editor can detect what caused an edit to occur by a human interface device such as “the click of a mouse”.).
Regarding claim 7
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the originality score is generated in part based on detected user inputs to the I/O device relative to expected human inputs to the I/O devices in order to generate the entered content (Ziolkowski discloses calculating a significance score wherein an edit can be considered significant if the score satisfies a threshold. Ziolkowski further discloses calculating the score includes comparing the significance of manual edits to the significance of generative artificial intelligence edits (¶101). Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶92 determining whether an edit is characteristic of a manual edit or artificial edit by using the size of an edit as an indicator, wherein humans typically type one character at a time due to using a single keystroke. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶93 an operation determining whether an edit is characteristic of a manual edit or an artificial edit by detecting wrist movement as a characteristic of manual input such as typing, analyzing biometric signals like heart rate and neural activity, and using peripheral devices like a keyboard or mouse which have sensors that indicate biometric data output indicative of a manual edit.)
Regarding claim 8
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a type of attestation certificate to be generated based on the originality score relative to originality score thresholds for generating different types of supported attestation certificates (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶45 responsive to determining an edit in the content editor meets a threshold of significance, an authorship token can be generated corresponding to the determined author of the edit. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶43 authorship tokens that identify the author may include the types of human or artificial.).
Regarding claim 9
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 8, wherein a first type of attestation certificate validates the entered content is human-generated (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶43 authorship tokens that identify the author may include the types of human or artificial. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶45 an authorship token can include whether the content region is human authored, and whether the author of the content is human or artificial. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶56: “A file can be parsed and sections of content having human authorship tokens can be identified. Such sections can be assumed to have been created by a human rather than a generative artificial intelligence for human authorship purposes”.)
Regarding claim 10
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 8, wherein a second type of attestation certificate validates the entered content is generated by the user of the IHS (Ziolkowski discloses a human type of authorship token that includes a user identifier as the human user associated with the content editor when the region of content was authored. Ziolkowski discloses the specific example: “Comment 308 includes an authorship token in the form of “Human Author Internal CZIOLK”, which indicates that the author is a human author internal to the organization and having a user identifier of CZIOLK” (¶159).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziolkowski in view of Hamlin; Daniel L. et al., U.S. Publication No. 2022/0414221 A1 (hereinafter “Hamlin”).
Regarding claim 11
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising, once the virtual environment has been launched (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶72 that the content editor instructions local to a user device, that when executed by a user device processor cause the processor to provide the content editor program. Ziolkowski further discloses the content editor can be cloud based or remote such as the example of GOOGLE DOCS (¶72-¶73).)
Ziolkowski does not disclose, but Hamlin discloses:
monitoring a location of the user relative to the IHS (Hamlin discloses that the processors of the information handling system process user presence data received from sensors to determine if a user is present or absent. Hamlin further discloses when the user is present in the system, the processor may continuously determine the distance of the user in relation to the IHS (¶35). Hamlin further discloses in ¶96: “User presence detection capabilities may determine an additional individual is in close proximity to the IHS”. Hamlin further discloses in ¶82 that user presence detection is based on a monitored context, which utilizes the sensors in the IHS to detect the presence of an individual in proximity to the IHS. Hamlin further discloses in ¶81 that the monitored context may be based on a physical location of the IHS using sensors such as a GPS sensor.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify Ziolkowski by applying Hamlin’s user presence detection by tracking if a user is within a physical field of view of the device connected to the remote content editor information handling system environment to yield correlating the physical distance of the attributed author to the environment to determine if the user is present to enhance the accuracy of the attribution for authorship when generating authorship tokens (see M.P.E.P. 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding claim 12
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the originality score is further generated (Ziolkowski discloses in ¶101: “calculating the significance score includes performing one or more of the following operations and using an associated output thereof”, wherein in an example: “the significance of manual edits is compared to the significance of generative artificial intelligence edits”. Ziolkowski further discloses in ¶93 an operation determining whether an edit is characteristic of a manual edit or an artificial edit by using sensors such as to detect wrist movement as a characteristic of manual input including typing, analyzing biometric signals like heart rate and neural activity, and using peripheral devices like a keyboard or mouse which have sensors that indicate biometric data output indicative of a manual edit.)
Ziolkowski does not disclose, but Hamlin discloses:
based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to the IHS (Hamlin discloses this limitation as recited in the rejection of claim 11.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify Ziolkowski by applying Hamlin’s use of a proximity sensor to both detect the presence of a user’s physical location in relation to Ziolkowski’s device used within the content editor authorship information handling system and to detect the presence of a user within a proximity of an I/O device such as a keyboard used to edit content in Ziolkowski’s content editor authorship information handling system to yield further enhancing the accuracy of calculating the significance score based on the user’s physical monitored location relative to either the system or an I/O device used to create content within the system. Ziolkowski’s system already discloses the use of peripheral devices such as keyboards and mice that, which may include sensors also capable of collecting biometric data, that can provide an indication of whether an edited content region is a manual or artificial edit. Adding Hamlin’s technique of detecting user’s presence within a physical proximity of the content editing information handling system and detecting a user’s presence within a proximity of an I/O device such as a keyboard used to edit a content region in the content editing information handling system would yield strengthening the calculation of the significance score for identifying whether the content was human generated or artificially generated by identifying if the attributed author who performed the edit was in proximity of the content editor information handling system or if the attributed author used the same I/O device used to edit a content region in the information handling system during the timeframe of the content region edit.
Regarding claim 13
Ziolkowski discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the originality score is further generated (Ziolkowski discloses this limitation as recited by the rejection of claim 12)
Ziolkowski does not disclose, but Hamlin discloses:
based on a proximity of the monitored location of the user to a first of the user I/O devices used to enter the content. (Hamlin discloses that the processor produces context information using sensors by determining a user’s presence or proximity by calculating a distance between a user and a keyboard. Hamlin further discloses that the type of keyboard includes “a physical keyboard integrated into IHS”, and more specifically: “whether the user operating the keyboard is typing with one or two hands” (¶36). Hamlin further discloses that the sensors used to measure proximity (¶30) can be a part of keyboard or other input device (¶31).)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12407730 B2 discloses a security communication system configured to have either a cyber secure isolated environment (CISE) or a Talon Isolated Secure Environment (TISE) for utilizing ambient software for various means such as content creation in a secure environment. JP 2026039807 A discloses a server analyzing received content by a user such as text and images, and generating a probability score indicating the percentage of the content generated by artificial intelligence, and further generating a digital certificate based on the determination. US 20170091482 A1 discloses a data loss prevention system for analyzing the trustworthiness of applications used in a cloud-based environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J KAISER whose telephone number is (571)272-8906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00 a.m-6:00 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 571-270-5143. 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.
/N.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights