DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed April 7, 2026.
Claims 2, 4, and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3, 5-13 ,and 15-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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, 3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards noneligible subject matter.
In term Step 1, claims 1, 3, 5-13, and 15-20 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1 and 13 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “A generative AI-based collaboration method performed by at least one computing device that implements a generative AI-based collaboration system in association with a knowledge base, the generative AI-based collaboration method comprising: receiving, a first user request for generating a plurality of participant personas associated with a target problem, from a user terminal; acquiring context information on the target problem; generating a first prompt based on the context information; inputting the generated first prompt into a generative model, and identifying a plurality of different specialized fields associated with the target problem; obtaining characteristic information of the plurality of participant personas by setting the characteristic information based on characteristics of the plurality of identified specialized fields, or by extracting the characteristic information included in the first user request, wherein the characteristic information includes work experience in the plurality of identified specialized fields; displaying, icons of the plurality of participant personas, and upon a selection of one of the icons, displaying a screen indicating characteristic information of a participant persona corresponding to the selected icon; based on a regeneration request, for a specific item among items constituting the characteristic information of a specific participant persona among the plurality of participant personas, regenerating the specific participant persona based on the regeneration request, the regenerating includes modifying, changing, or deleting the specific item; receiving, a second user request for generating ideas by the plurality of participant personas, and generating a second prompt based on the second user request and the characteristic information of the plurality of participant personas; generating ideas based on the characteristic information of each of the plurality of participant personas by inputting the second prompt into the generative model; and displaying the generated ideas on the screen of the user interface such that each idea corresponding to each participant persona is displayed along the characteristic information of each participant persona, including work experience in a corresponding specialized field among the plurality of identified specialized fields”. The claims are describing a user providing characteristics and generating personas based on the selected characteristics to generate ideas based on requested aspects from the user. This is directed towards a user providing information that is input into a high level analysis in terms of generating personas that are then utilized to generate ideas based on the user input characteristics and request. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Further, the claims are describing a collection of personas that are utilized in idea generation that further facilitates an interaction between a person and generated personas for collaboration. As such, the claims are also directed towards an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1 and 13 are, “A generative AI-based collaboration system in association with a knowledge base comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing one or more computer programs executed by the one or more processors, the one or more computer programs include instructions for (claim 13); via a user interface, on a screen of the user interface on the user terminal, received via the user interface from the user terminal; generating the plurality of participant personas, each participant personas representing a specialist in each of the identified specialized fields and reflecting the characteristic information”. The computer elements are described in the originally filed specification [114-122] and the generation is described in paragraphs [47-49, 70-75, and 104]. The computer elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The processor, memory, and other computer aspects are describing the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. In terms of the generating personas, the generation is described in terms of an idea of a solution. There are elements of using an LLM or other generative AI aspects, but the description and support merely provide aspects of the solution that a persona is generated. There is no particular solution or particular way to achieve the outcome. As such, the additional elements are mere instructions to apply and are not transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claims 1 and 13 are, “A generative AI-based collaboration system in association with a knowledge base comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing one or more computer programs executed by the one or more processors, the one or more computer programs include instructions for (claim 13); via a user interface, on a screen of the user interface on the user terminal, received via the user interface from the user terminal; generating the plurality of participant personas, each participant personas representing a specialist in each of the identified specialized fields and reflecting the characteristic information”. The computer elements are described in the originally filed specification [114-122] and the generation is described in paragraphs [47-49, 70-75, and 104]. The computer elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The processor, memory, and other computer aspects are describing the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. In terms of the generating personas, the generation is described in terms of an idea of a solution. There are elements of using an LLM or other generative AI aspects, but the description and support merely provide aspects of the solution that a persona is generated. There is no particular solution or particular way to achieve the outcome. As such, the additional elements are mere instructions to apply and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3, 5-12 and 15-20 are further directed towards the abstract idea and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the first user request includes characteristic information for each of the plurality of participant personas, and the generating the plurality of participant personas includes generating the plurality of participant personas in which the characteristic information is preferentially reflected”, “wherein the plurality of participant personas include a first participant persona, and the generating the ideas includes: generating a primary idea corresponding to the first participant persona in accordance with the second user request; generating feedback information by the other participant personas except for the first participant persona with respect to the primary idea; and generating a secondary idea corresponding to the first participant persona by reflecting the feedback information in the primary idea”, “wherein the generating the ideas includes: providing the ideas generated by the plurality of participant personas to the user terminal; receiving a regeneration request for the generated ideas from the user terminal; and regenerating the ideas based on the regeneration request”, “further comprising: evaluating the generated ideas; selecting an optimal idea based on the evaluated result; and visualizing the optimal idea and providing the visualized idea to the user terminal”, “wherein the evaluating the generated ideas includes: selecting any one of the plurality of participant personas as an evaluator; and grouping the ideas by using the participant persona selected as the evaluator”, “wherein the evaluating the generated ideas includes: generating a user persona representing an end user for a service or product associated with the target problem; and grouping the ideas by using the generated user persona”, “wherein the evaluating the generated ideas includes performing scoring for the ideas by using the plurality of participant personas”, “wherein the selecting the optimal idea includes: calculating an average score according to the scoring for each of the ideas; and selecting an idea with a highest average score as the optimal idea”, and “wherein the providing the visualized idea to the user terminal includes generating a prototype based on the selected optimal idea”. The claims are further describing the abstract idea both in terms of the mental process and interaction (certain method of organizing human activity) groupings. The claims provide aspects of the ideation generation including regenerating ideas and personas (which is just providing fresh ideas or gathering different attributes for the focus group), voting elements for the optimal idea, providing the outputs of the voting/results, and generating a prototype based on the idea. The dependent claims are further describing the cycle of brainstorming with a group. The additional elements of the dependent claims are further directed towards the above considered elements in terms of the generated personas and computer elements. As such, the dependent claims are directed towards the abstract idea and are not significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed April 7, 2026 on pages 9-12 regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection. Examiner agrees that the amended claim language and specification support provides adequate written description to support the claimed subject matter. As such, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to the arguments filed April 7, 2026 on pages 15-19 regarding the prior art rejections, specifically that the amended claim language is not taught by the cited prior art. Examiner agrees. The combination of elements with respect to the independent claims regarding the persona characteristics, generation and regeneration, and displaying the generated ideas based on the characteristics and personas is not taught by the cited prior art. The previous combination teaches aspects of the generation and characteristics, however, the previously cited and further considered prior art does not teach the combination of elements. As such, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
In response to the arguments filed April 7, 2026 on pages 12-15 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the claimed invention is directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments allege that the claim limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind with respect to SRI v Cisco. The claims first are not analogous to network monitors and analyzing network packets. The claims are directed towards a user providing characteristics for generated personas for generating ideas. Examiner notes that the user is providing the characteristics and this is even provided in the specification [83-87]. The user is selecting the characteristics for the persona and the user is selecting the personas for the idea generation. The user is mentally opining and judging the elements to generate and the generation step is merely a tool to implement the user provided characteristics and requests. Further, the steps include aspects of idea generation and providing the ideas to the user which falls within the identified abstract idea both in terms of mental process and certain method of organizing human activity.
The arguments further allege that the claims are directed towards aspects that are technical improvements with respect to Desjardins. The specification does not provide the specific technical improvement, but rather the description is providing an idea of a solution using the generated personas. There is no improvement to the generated personas or the system itself. As such, the additional elements are generic technology to implement the abstract idea. As such, claims 1 and 13 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1, 3, 5-13, and 15-20 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smurro [2024/0266074] (generative AI collaboration);
Guinn et al [2024/0412030] (Generative AI prompt persona customization);
Mudholkar [11,989,680] (expert profile based on machine learning generated characteristics);
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights