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 because el. 216 is covered by the flow chart block of “Modify existing profile?” in Fig. 2. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 20:
“artificial intelligence profile training module” . . . “operable to modify”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 20 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 11, and 20, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
generating an artificial intelligence (Al) profile representing a first person; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an Ai profile of a first person; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
modifying the artificial intelligence profile to interact with one or more other users based on the other user's relationship with the first person; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could modify a profile to interact with one or more users based on their relationship with the first user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
maintaining the artificial intelligence profile representing the first person based on their interaction with the one or more other users. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could maintain an Ai profile based on interactions with a first user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
generating an artificial intelligence (AI) profile representing a synthesized person based on a second person's preferences; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an Ai profile of a first person based on a second person’s preferences; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
modifying the artificial intelligence profile to improve engagement with the second person based on the second person's interaction with the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could modify a profile to interact with one or more users based on their interaction with the first user profile; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
maintaining the artificial intelligence profile representing the synthesized person to remember past interaction with the second person between sessions of interaction. (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could maintain an Ai profile based on remembered interactions with a first user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
. . . modify the artificial intelligence profile to improve engagement with the second person based on the second person's interaction with the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile; (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could modify a profile to interact with one or more users based on their interaction with the first user profile; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
wherein the artificial intelligence profile representing the synthesized person is maintained to remember past interaction with the second person between sessions of interaction. (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could maintain an Ai profile based on remembered interactions with a first user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
an artificial intelligence (AI) profile embodied in machine-readable data, the artificial intelligence profile representing a synthesized person based on a second person's preferences; (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and an artificial intelligence profile training module operable to (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
Claim 2:
wherein modifying the artificial intelligence profile to interact with one or more other users based on the other user's relationship with the first person comprises adapting the artificial intelligence profile based on one or more other user's prompts .
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could adapt a profile based on user prompts; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, adaptation, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claims 3 and 13:
wherein the graphical image is a moving or video image.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use of graphical images.
Claim 4:
wherein the artificial intelligence (Al) profile is anonymous to the one or more other users.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could keep an Ai profile anonymous to one of more other users; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, adaptation, and maintenance of an anonymous artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claim 5 and 16:
wherein maintaining the artificial intelligence profile comprises remembering past interactions with the one or more users.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could maintain an Ai profile based on remembered interactions with a first user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claim 6:
wherein maintaining the artificial intelligence profile comprises remembering the degree of engagement or interest shown by the one or more other users to the artificial intelligence profile's interactions.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could remember a degree of engagement to an Ai profile’s interactions; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, adaptation, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claims 7 and 17:
further comprising adjusting the artificial intelligence profile's interaction with the one or more users based on a change in the one or more user's age, maturity, interests, mood, or life events.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could adjust a profile based on changes in user age, maturity, interests, mood or life events; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, adaptation, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claims 8 and 18:
further comprising moderating or selectively approving the artificial intelligence profile's interaction with the one or more users based on compliance with community standards and/or terms of service.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could approve interactions with an Ai profile based on these rules and regulations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of following rules that govern interactions with the Ai profile.
Claim 9:
wherein the artificial intelligence profile interaction with the one or more users comprises social media interaction.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to the field of use of social media. Furthermore, this limitation merely alters the type of interaction used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 10:
wherein the artificial intelligence profile comprises a generative pretrained transformer.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a GPT since the limitation merely uses a GPT in its ordinary capacity to perform its machine learning functions, and since the limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome using the GPT without giving detail as to how the solution is achieved.
Claim 12:
wherein modifying the artificial intelligence profile to improve engagement with the second person based on the second person's interaction with the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile comprises adapting the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile based on one or more second person's prompts.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could adapt a profile based on user prompts; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the creation, modification, adaptation, and maintenance of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claim 14:
presenting the artificial intelligence profile's synthesized person for interaction with the second person.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present an Ai synthesized person for interaction with another person; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) in the form of social activities and rule following since the presentation of an artificial intelligence profile of a user manages social interactions between the profile and the user interacting with such, teaches the profile how to act like another individual, and establishes rules that the profile is to follow in behaving like a user.
Claim 15:
wherein the synthesized person's interaction with the second person is of an adult nature.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of limitation merely alters the type of interaction used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 19:
wherein the artificial intelligence profile comprises a generative pretrained transformer operable to provide the artificial intelligence (AI) profile with contextual understanding such that the artificial intelligence (AI) profile may provide a relevant response to a variety of inputs.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a GPT since the limitation merely uses a GPT in its ordinary capacity to perform its machine learning functions, and since the limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome using the GPT without giving detail as to how the solution is achieved.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung et al. (Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20220050302 A; hereinafter "Sung").
As per claim 1, Sung teaches:
A method comprising:
Sung teaches a system and method for creating a virtual personality of a second user for a first user. (Sung: paragraph [0009])
generating an artificial intelligence (Al) profile representing a first person;
Sung teaches that the system may generate an artificially intelligent representation of a first user for a second user based on the first user's preference (including whether the import only Facebook information or Facebook and Instagram information in creating the representation). (Sung: paragraphs [0078-81])
modifying the artificial intelligence profile to interact with one or more other users based on the other user's relationship with the first person;
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94])
maintaining the artificial intelligence profile representing the first person based on their interaction with the one or more other users.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94])
As per claim 2, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein modifying the artificial intelligence profile to interact with one or more other users based on the other user's relationship with the first person comprises adapting the artificial intelligence profile based on one or more other user's prompts .
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions and conversations between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94])
As per claim 3, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the graphical image is a moving or video image.
Sung further teaches that the interactions, including conversation information comprising video, may be displayed through the TV to the user. (Sung: paragraphs [0088-91, 97])
As per claim 5, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein maintaining the artificial intelligence profile comprises remembering past interactions with the one or more users.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94]) Sung further teaches that the system may create memories of past interactions between the first user and the artificial intelligence character. (Sung: paragraph [0084])
As per claim 7, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising adjusting the artificial intelligence profile's interaction with the one or more users based on a change in the one or more user's age, maturity, interests, mood, or life events.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94]) Sung further teaches that the system may continuously learn based on new data including sympathy events (changes in a user's mood). (Sung: paragraph [0084])
As per claim 9, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the artificial intelligence profile interaction with the one or more users comprises social media interaction.
Sung further teaches that the profile may be maintained based upon social media interaction between the first user and the one or more other users. (Sung: paragraph [0064-65, 73, ])
As per claim 11, Sung teaches:
A method comprising:
Sung teaches a system and method for creating a virtual personality of a second user for a first user. (Sung: paragraph [0009])
generating an artificial intelligence (AI) profile representing a synthesized person based on a second person's preferences;
Sung teaches that the system may generate an artificially intelligent representation of a first user for a second user based on the first user's preference (including whether the import only Facebook information or Facebook and Instagram information in creating the representation). (Sung: paragraphs [0078-81])
modifying the artificial intelligence profile to improve engagement with the second person based on the second person's interaction with the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile;
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94])
maintaining the artificial intelligence profile representing the synthesized person to remember past interaction with the second person between sessions of interaction.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94]) Sung further teaches that the system may create memories of past interactions between the first user and the artificial intelligence character. (Sung: paragraph [0084])
As per claim 12, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein modifying the artificial intelligence profile to improve engagement with the second person based on the second person's interaction with the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile comprises adapting the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile based on one or more second person's prompts.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions and conversations between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94])
As per claim 13, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the graphical image is a moving or video image.
Sung further teaches that the interactions, including conversation information comprising video, may be displayed through the TV to the user. (Sung: paragraphs [0088-91, 97])
As per claim 14, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
presenting the artificial intelligence profile's synthesized person for interaction with the second person.
Sung further teaches that the interactions, including conversation information comprising video, may be displayed through the TV to the user. (Sung: paragraphs [0088-91, 97])
As per claim 16, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein maintaining the artificial intelligence profile comprises remembering past interactions with the one or more users.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94]) Sung further teaches that the system may create memories of past interactions between the first user and the artificial intelligence character. (Sung: paragraph [0084])
As per claim 17, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising adjusting the artificial intelligence profile's interaction with the one or more users based on a change in the one or more user's age, maturity, interests, mood, or life events.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94]) Sung further teaches that the system may continuously learn based on new data including sympathy events (changes in a user's mood). (Sung: paragraph [0084])
As per claim 20, Sung teaches:
A computing system, comprising:
Sung teaches a system and method for creating a virtual personality of a second user for a first user. (Sung: paragraph [0009])
an artificial intelligence (AI) profile embodied in machine-readable data, the artificial intelligence profile representing a synthesized person based on a second person's preferences;
Sung teaches the implementation of the system and method with one or more computer modules comprising hardware and software including memory and software code. (Sung: paragraph [0122-123]) Sung teaches that the system may generate an artificially intelligent representation of a first user for a second user based on the first user's preference (including whether the import only Facebook information or Facebook and Instagram information in creating the representation). (Sung: paragraphs [0078-81])
and an artificial intelligence profile training module operable to modify the artificial intelligence profile to improve engagement with the second person based on the second person's interaction with the synthesized person's artificial intelligence profile;
Sung teaches the implementation of the system and method with one or more computer modules comprising hardware and software. (Sung: paragraph [0122-123]) Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94])
wherein the artificial intelligence profile representing the synthesized person is maintained to remember past interaction with the second person between sessions of interaction.
Sung teaches that the profile may be created and modified to interact with the users based on their relationship, and may adapt and change over time based on the interactions between the first user and the representation of the second user. (Sung: paragraphs [0080-94]) Sung further teaches that the system may create memories of past interactions between the first user and the artificial intelligence character. (Sung: paragraph [0084])
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Gaume, Nicolas (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130125026; hereinafter "Gaume").
As per claim 4, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the artificial intelligence (Al) profile is anonymous to the one or more other users.
Gaume, however, teaches that a virtual representation of a user in the form of a facet may be made based off a real world profile of the user, wherein the facets may be anonymized such that the user facet is not traceable back to their real world profile. (Guame: paragraphs [0020, 32, 35-37, 40]) Gaume teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Sung for the benefit of maintaining a user's privacy in online interactions as a first class feature. (Gaume: paragraph [0051]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gaume with the teachings of Sung to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Singal et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150261867; hereinafter "Singal").
As per claim 6, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein maintaining the artificial intelligence profile comprises remembering the degree of engagement or interest shown by the one or more other users to the artificial intelligence profile's interactions.
Singal, however, teaches that a system may track conversation histories of users in order to determine and score topics of interest of the user for use in further presenting such topics for discussion in conversations. (Singal: paragraph [0003, 50]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Sung or Singal. Remembering the degree of user interest in a conversation topic does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Sung. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Singal with the teachings of Sung since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of O'Brien, Amanda (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20080168548; hereinafter "O'Brien").
As per claim 8, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
further comprising moderating or selectively approving the artificial intelligence profile's interaction with the one or more users based on compliance with community standards and/or terms of service.
O'Brien, however, teaches that a user's age may be verified before being allowed to engage in a chat, wherein the chat comprises content of an adult nature (requiring compliance with terms of service and community standards). (O'Brien: paragraphs [0017-20, 34]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Sung, or by O'Brien. Altering the content to be of an adult nature, and requiring age verification before allowing a user to chat does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Sung. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of O'Brien with the teachings of Sung, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 15, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the synthesized person's interaction with the second person is of an adult nature.
O'Brien, however, teaches that a user's age may be verified before being allowed to engage in a chat, wherein the chat comprises content of an adult nature (requiring compliance with terms of service and community standards). (O'Brien: paragraphs [0017-20, 34]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Sung, or by O'Brien. Altering the content to be of an adult nature, and requiring age verification before allowing a user to chat does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Sung. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of O'Brien with the teachings of Sung, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 18, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
further comprising moderating or selectively approving the artificial intelligence profile's interaction with the one or more users based on compliance with community standards and/or terms of service.
O'Brien, however, teaches that a user's age may be verified before being allowed to engage in a chat, wherein the chat comprises content of an adult nature (requiring compliance with terms of service and community standards). (O'Brien: paragraphs [0017-20, 34]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Sung, or by O'Brien. Altering the content to be of an adult nature, and requiring age verification before allowing a user to chat does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Sung. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of O'Brien with the teachings of Sung, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Mahabaleshwarkar et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20240184991; hereinafter "Ameya").
As per claim 10, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the artificial intelligence profile comprises a generative pretrained transformer.
Sung teaches that the system may generate an artificially intelligent representation of a first user for a second user based on the first user's preference (including whether the import only Facebook information or Facebook and Instagram information in creating the representation). (Sung: paragraphs [0078-81]) Sung further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to train the artificially intelligent character which has a conversation with the user. (Sung: paragraph [0072-76]) Sung, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the use of a generative pretrained transformer to do so.
Ameya, however, teaches the use of a generative pretrained transformer to train an artificially intelligent dialogue chatbot on structured data which has a contextual understanding of the conversation and provides relevant responses. (Ameya: paragraph [0034-36, 43-45, 52, 78]) Ameya teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Sung for the benefit of generating dialogue responses that are more conversational and varied than those generated using predefined template structure which can provide a more natural user experience than conventional systems. (Ameya: paragraph [0034]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ameya with the teachings of Sung to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 19, Sung teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the artificial intelligence profile comprises a generative pretrained transformer operable to provide the artificial intelligence (AI) profile with contextual understanding such that the artificial intelligence (AI) profile may provide a relevant response to a variety of inputs.
Sung teaches that the system may generate an artificially intelligent representation of a first user for a second user based on the first user's preference (including whether the import only Facebook information or Facebook and Instagram information in creating the representation). (Sung: paragraphs [0078-81]) Sung further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to train the artificially intelligent character which has a conversation with the user. (Sung: paragraph [0072-76]) Sung, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the use of a generative pretrained transformer to do so.
Ameya, however, teaches the use of a generative pretrained transformer to train an artificially intelligent dialogue chatbot on structured data which has a contextual understanding of the conversation and provides relevant responses. (Ameya: paragraph [0034-36, 43-45, 52, 78]) Ameya teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Sung for the benefit of generating dialogue responses that are more conversational and varied than those generated using predefined template structure which can provide a more natural user experience than conventional systems. (Ameya: paragraph [0034]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ameya with the teachings of Sung to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628