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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 2/6/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “enables” do not positively recites the claim elements. Appropriate correction is required.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-9 recite tangible components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine. Claims 10-15 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., a process. Claims 16-20 describes a non-transitory computer storage medium, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 10 recites:
analyzing, by a processing system speech patterns and vocabulary of a user of a communication during a communication exchange with an assistant;
determining, by a processing system a user deficiency based on the analyzing; and
adjusting, by the processing system, the assistant persona based on the user deficiency, resulting in an adjusted persona, wherein the adjusting the assistant persona enables the assistant to present information during the communication exchange that is selected by the assistant based on the user deficiency, wherein the adjusted persona provides the information in the communication exchange responsive to the user deficiency.
The limitations of adjusting an assistant persona based on a user deficiency during a communication exchange, these limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human could adjust an assistant persona based on the user’s personality.
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.
In addition, the limitations mentioned above (i.e., “analyzing”, “determining”, and “adjusting” in the context of this claim) as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, exemplify commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and falls within the “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting “a processor”, “communication device”, digital assistant” nothing in the claim elements disqualifies the steps from being commercial interactions including advertising. For example, but for the “a processor”, “communication device”, digital assistant” language, the steps of analyzing”, “determining”, and “adjusting”, in the context of this claim encompasses steps of adjusting an assistant persona based on the user deficiency.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite the same abstract idea as identified above and further recite a memory to store instructions (claim 1), machine readable medium (claim 16).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“a processor” (claims 1, 10, 16)
“communication device” (claims 1, 10 and 16) ,
“digital assistant” (claims 1, 10 and 16)
“a memory to store instructions” (claim 1)
“ machine readable medium” (claim 16).
The “processor”, “a memory “ and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “communication device”, “digital assistant”, “ a memory for storing”, “machine readable medium”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the “analyzing”, “determining”, and “adjusting” steps.
The additional elements of one or more hardware processors, machine learning are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Regarding the limitations ”a memory “ and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “communication device”, “digital assistant”, “ a memory for storing”, “machine readable medium”, as seen above, these limitations have been interpreted as “apply it”. However, these limitations can be additionally interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, these limitations alone and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
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 elements of a “memory “ and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “communication device”, “digital assistant”, “ a memory for storing”, “machine readable medium”, alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitations a memory “ and “one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “communication device”, “digital assistant”, “ a memory for storing”, “machine readable medium”, it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,176.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,076.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,227,312. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite the adjusting of the digital persona being based on the user deficiency and the ‘312 the adjusting of the persona being based on opposite traits of the user. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included the adjustment of the digital person to have been based on the user’s deficiency instead of the use’s opposite trait in order to incorporate traits that will improve and enhance the user’s traits.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.10,311,482. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite the adjusting of the digital persona being based on the user deficiency and the ‘482 the adjusting of the persona being based on opposite traits of the user. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have included the adjustment of the digital person to have been based on the user’s deficiency instead of the use’s opposite trait in order to incorporate traits that will improve and enhance the user’s traits.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are allowed over the prior art of record.
The invention pertains to digital assistant persona 170 (or other digital assistant personas of other digital assistants being presented by various devices) can control, or otherwise guide, much of the interactions with the user 130 and/or other digital assistants. The intent and/or purpose of the digital assistant persona 170 can vary from user to user. In one embodiment, the intent and/or purpose of the digital assistant persona 170 may develop or evolve as the needs or desires of the user 130 change over time (such as during the communication exchange or between different communication exchanges). In particular, it determines a user deficiency based on the analyzing of the user input and can adjust the first digital assistant persona based on the user persona and the user deficiency.
Rapaport (2010/00205541) teaches on paragraph 0027, behavioral trend determining services are used to develop a personal emotion expression profile (PEEP) for a device user. Rapaport teaches that the PEEP is developed by analyzing the user's style of consuming content and reacting to content; in particular, Rapaport teaches automatically determining the speeds at which specific users intake different kinds of content and also the speeds at which the users react to the content. Rapport doesn’t teach the claimed analyzing speech patterns and vocabulary of the user and detecting a user deficiency based on the analyzing. Dettinger (2010/0185640) discloses a method for managing avatar behavior (paragraph [0052]), based on text conversations of a user as the user visits virtual locations over time. The system of Dettinger analyzes behavior of an avatar and detects anomalies of conversations with respect to a context and Adjali (2007/0074114) was cited to teach adjusting behavior of an avatar in real time, according to an emotional state of a user and EP 2 207 164 A2 was cited to disclose the control signals control a "recognized persona" or avatar stored in a memory to provide simulated human attributes to the apparatus, network or third party communication device.; The avatar may be changed or upgraded according to user choice. “Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload” by Patiie Maes discloses interface agents are computer programs that employ Artificial Intelligence techniques to provide active assistance to a user with computer-based tasks. Agents radically change the current user experience, through the metaphor that an agent can act as a personal assistant. The agent acquires its competence by learning from the user as well as from agents assisting other users. Several prototype agents have been built using this technique, including agents that provide personalized assistance with meeting scheduling, electronic mail handling, electronic news filtering and selection of entertainment. Nevertheless, the references alone or in combination fail to teach “adjusting the digital assistant persona based on the user deficiency, resulting in an adjusted persona, wherein the adjusting the digital assistant persona enables the digital assistant to present information during the communication exchange that is selected by the digital assistant based on the user deficiency, wherein the information is associated with a subject matter that is designated by the processing system as being unknown to the user, wherein the adjusted persona provides the information in the communication exchange responsive to the user deficiency” .
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights