DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
2. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 12 and 20 recite a method comprising:
receiving input information,
generating a painting knowledge text based on the input information, and
broadcasting the painting knowledge text.
The limitations of receiving information, generating text, and broadcasting the text, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generating a driving voice and virtual character in claims 1, 12 and 20, a processor in claim 12, and computer in claim 20, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the voice, character, processor and computer language, receiving, generating, and broadcasting in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually obtaining the information, generating a knowledge text, and broadcasting it, for example using a pen and paper. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the claimed steps and a voice and virtual character to broadcast the text. The processor/computer in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of obtaining information, generating text, and delivering it using a generic voice and virtual character) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recite invoking a multimodal large language model for generate the painting knowledge text. This model is also recited at a high level of generality and therefore constitutes no more than use of generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the claimed steps using a virtual character and a generic LLM amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, such as details of receiving the input information, and the types of information delivered to the user (e.g. painting steps, comments, etc.). Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Carbune et al. (US Patent No. 12,111,834 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20, Carbune discloses a method of generating a content based on a large model, comprising: performing an intention recognition on an input information in response to receiving the input information (receive and process voice command – column 6, lines 58-67);
generating a painting knowledge text by invoking a multimodal large model based on an intention for painting knowledge acquisition in response to recognizing the intention for painting knowledge acquisition from the input information (information/knowledge about a painting at a museum - column 26, lines 30-38);
generating a first driving voice and a first action instruction for driving a virtual character (chatbot/ambient agent) according to the painting knowledge text; and broadcasting the painting knowledge text by driving the virtual character according to the first driving voice and the first action instruction (chatbot/ambient agent communicates LLM-generated information to user via voice, text and/or animation – column 21, lines 10-22) (as per claims 1, 12 and 20),
the input information comprises an input voice; the performing an intention recognition on an input information in response to receiving the input information comprises: converting the input voice into an input text (speech-to-text – column 29, lines 54-63); and recognizing one of the intention for painting knowledge acquisition, an intention for painting image generation, and an intention for painting knowledge retrieval from the input text (painting knowledge acquisition/retrieval – column 26, lines 30-38) (as per claims 2 and 13),
generating a painting image by invoking the multimodal large model based on the intention for painting image generation in response to recognizing the intention for painting image generation from the input information (column 26, lines 30-38 – user takes picture of painting, and LLM searches for and generates images of similar paintings) (as per claims 6 and 17), and
retrieving a target knowledge text from a painting knowledge base in response to recognizing the intention for painting knowledge retrieval from the input information; generating a second driving voice and a second action instruction for driving the virtual character according to the target knowledge text; and broadcasting the target knowledge text by driving the virtual character according to the second driving voice and the second action instruction (column 26, lines 30-38 – retrieve and display additional painting-related information according to additional requests from the user) (as per claims 8 and 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune et al. (US Patent No. 12,111,834 B1) in view of Duffy et al. (US 2022/0230370 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, to the extent that Carbune does not explicitly disclose the input information comprises a painting step information (interpreted as steps to create or complete a painting); the generating a painting image by invoking the multimodal large model based on the intention for painting image generation in response to recognizing the intention for painting image generation from the input information comprises: sending the painting step information to the multimodal large model; and generating the painting image by using the multimodal large model based on the painting step information, Duffy discloses creating and displaying step-by-step instructions for how to create a work such as a painting (Par. 60) utilizing machine learning analysis of a creation of the painting (Par. 41).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carbune by utilizing the LLM to generate and deliver this step instruction information, as suggested by Duffy, to obtain predictable results of assisting a user in reproducing a painting in which they are interested.
8. Claims 3-5, 9-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbune et al. (US Patent No. 12,111,834 B1) in view of Richter (US Patent No. 11,308,716 B1)
Regarding claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 14 and 16, Carbune does not appear to explicitly disclose the intention for painting knowledge acquisition comprises an intention for painting learning and an intention for painting comment; the multimodal large model comprises at least one of a painting teaching large model and a painting comment large model; and the generating a painting knowledge text by invoking a multimodal large model based on an intention for painting knowledge acquisition in response to recognizing the intention for painting knowledge acquisition from the input information comprises: generating a painting teaching text by invoking the painting teaching large model in response to the intention for painting knowledge acquisition being the intention for painting learning; and generating a painting comment text by invoking the painting comment large model in response to the intention for painting knowledge acquisition being the intention for painting comment (as per claims 3, 9 and 14), and
the input information comprises a painting work; the generating a painting comment text by invoking the painting comment large model in response to the intention for painting knowledge acquisition being the intention for painting comment comprises: sending the input information and the painting work to the painting comment large model; and commenting on the painting work by using the painting comment large model to obtain the painting comment text (as per claims 5, 11 and 16).
However, Richter discloses a virtual reality system for recognizing objects in a user environment and obtaining and providing to the user information about the objects (column 7, line 59 – column 8, line 16), the information including comments about paintings (column 17, lines 4-19). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Carbune by presenting comments about the painting. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 15, Carbune further discloses the generating a painting teaching text by invoking the painting teaching large model in response to the intention for painting knowledge acquisition being the intention for painting learning comprises: analyzing the intention for painting learning, so as to determine that the intention for painting learning is a basic painting knowledge learning; and generating a basic painting knowledge text (e.g. artist, history) by invoking the painting teaching large model according to the basic painting knowledge learning (column 26, lines 30-38).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715