DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 12/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 1-16 are directed towards a method, claims 17-19 are directed towards a computer-program product, and claim 20 is directed towards a system all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including constructing a virtual personal. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 17, and 20) are directed to generating of a persona, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
a computer-implemented method, comprising:
at a virtual persona service:
identifying, by one or more processors, a respective set of permitted values or a respective distribution of values for each community persona variable of a set of community persona variables;
constructing, by the one or more processors, a virtual community persona template that indicates the respective set of permitted values or the respective distribution of values for each community persona variable of the set of community persona variables;
generating, by the one or more processors, a virtual persona community based at least in part on the virtual community persona template, wherein the generating comprises:
aggregating, by the one or more processors, the one or more batches of virtual personas to form the virtual persona community;
constructing, by the one or more processors, a persona-describing prompt based at least in part on the respective distinct set of community variables and associated variable values corresponding to the indicated virtual persona;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction such as business relations(See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction; managing personal behavior then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory. The claims recite the steps are performed by the processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory.
The limitations of
providing, by the one or more processors, the virtual community persona template and a set of persona-generating prompts to one or more language models, wherein each persona-generating prompt of the set of persona-generating prompts comprises a set of instructions informing the one or more language learning models to select variable values for a respective subset of the set of community persona variables;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, one or more batches of virtual personas from the one or more language learning models based at least in part on the provided virtual community persona template and the set of persona-generating prompts, wherein each batch of the one or more batches comprises a plurality of distinct sets of community persona variables and associated variable values, each distinct set of the plurality of distinct sets mapping to a respective virtual persona;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a user query and an indication of a virtual persona of the virtual persona community via an interactive user interface;
providing, by the one or more processors and to the one or more language learning models, the user query and the persona-describing prompt;
outputting, by the one or more processors and from the one or more language learning models, a response to the user query via the interactive user interface based at least in part on the provided user query and the persona-describing prompt.
are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory. The processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary gathering and output.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
providing, by the one or more processors, the virtual community persona template and a set of persona-generating prompts to one or more language models, wherein each persona-generating prompt of the set of persona-generating prompts comprises a set of instructions informing the one or more language learning models to select variable values for a respective subset of the set of community persona variables;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, one or more batches of virtual personas from the one or more language learning models based at least in part on the provided virtual community persona template and the set of persona-generating prompts, wherein each batch of the one or more batches comprises a plurality of distinct sets of community persona variables and associated variable values, each distinct set of the plurality of distinct sets mapping to a respective virtual persona;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a user query and an indication of a virtual persona of the virtual persona community via an interactive user interface;
providing, by the one or more processors and to the one or more language learning models, the user query and the persona-describing prompt;
outputting, by the one or more processors and from the one or more language learning models, a response to the user query via the interactive user interface based at least in part on the provided user query and the persona-describing prompt.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2- 16, 18, and 19 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 2, 3 recite a processor to apply values; claim 4, 8, 9, 11 recites a processor to generating sets of data and profiles; claims 6, 7 recites a processor to updating prompts; claim 10 recites a processor to synchronizing a profile; claims 11, 13 recite a processor and user interface to outputting images and receiving data; claim 15 recites a model selecting variables. The dependent claims 2- 16, 18, and 19 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2- 16, 18, and 19 recites processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2- 16, 18, and 19 recites processor, model, user interface, database, machine-readable medium, memory, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2- 16, 18, and 19 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1, 17, and 20. Therefore claims 2- 16, 18, and 19 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “virtual persona comprises a comprises an identifier”, the Examiner recommend amending “virtual persona comprises an identifier”. Some of the words used lacks proper use, sentence structure, and should be written clearly and concisely. Appropriate correction is required.
Reasons Claims are Patentably Distinguishable from the Prior Art
Examiner analyzed claim 1 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success as discussed below.
U.S. Patent 11657797 B2 -Bishnoi discloses techniques for invoking and switching between chatbots of a chatbot system. In some embodiments, the chatbot system is capable of routing an utterance received while a user is already interacting with a first chatbot in the chatbot system. For instance, the chatbot system may identify a second chatbot based on determining that (i) such an utterance is an invalid input to the first chatbot or (ii) that the first chatbot is attempting to route the utterance to a destination associated with the first chatbot. Identifying the second chatbot can involve computing, using a predictive model, separate confidence scores for the first chatbot and the second chatbot, and then determining that a confidence score for the second chatbot satisfies one or more confidence score thresholds. The utterance is then routed to the second chatbot based on the identifying of the second chatbot.
U.S. Pub 20220021630 A1 – Goyal discloses a chat message from a user to a primary chat bot service is received. A secondary chat bot service is automatically evaluated and selected to handle the chat message, wherein the secondary chat bot service is selected from a plurality of candidate secondary chat bot services that includes at least one chat bot service provided by a third-party entity external to an entity providing the primary chat bot service. The chat message is forwarded to the selected secondary chat bot service.
U.S. Pub 20250310602 A1 – McGuire discloses a learning process for intelligent management, e.g. learning user preferences for recommending content characterized by learning algorithms to generating an user persona; wherein, the user data and associated metadata performs a clustering to group user together based on determined persona categories.
However, Bishnoi, Goyal, and McGuire, individually or in combination, do not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as a whole as recited in independent claim 1.
This applies to independent claims 17 and 20 as these claims includes the same feature of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but insufficient, either singularly or in combination with one or more of the remaining prior art references of record, to render claim 1 of the invention anticipated or obvious:
W.O. Pub 2024015633 A1 – Larsen discloses an artificial intelligence based framework for automated, intelligent engagement with users. It highlights methods to create self-learning, context-sensitive systems that can manage communications effectively across digital environments while maintaining adaptability and scalability.
Enhancing User Experience with AI-Generated CSS Through Machine Learning for Adaptive Web Design – Yadav discloses a machine learning that goes beyond content recommendation and directly enhance the visual and interactive experience of web users based on users personalization https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=10882559
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624