DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the originally filed specification and claims [February 28, 2025].
Claims 1-20 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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 13 are directed towards, “generating the plurality of participant personas associated with the target problem in accordance with the first user request, the plurality of participant personas representing a specialist having work experience in different specialized fields associated with the target problem; and generating ideas based on work experience of each of the plurality of participant personas in accordance with a second user request indicating generation of ideas by the plurality of participant personas”. The claims are directed towards generating personas representing specialist having work experience to generate ideas based on work experience for the personas. The written description in terms of describing and supporting the generation of the personas based on work experience are paragraphs [63-70, 83-85, and 104]. The specification describes participating personas in terms of characteristics involving, “demographic information (e.g., age, gender, educational background, income level, educational level, residential area, etc.), and information such as personality type (MBTI), experience of using a service or product, brand, intimacy with a product, digital behavior and social media activities, consumption propensity, shopping habits, technical preference, and capability” [104]. It is unclear how this conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art the generation of specialized fields for generating personas. The discussed support provides elements of demographics, information for personality, education level, etc, however, there is no specific written description support that conveys to one of ordinary skill that the written description has possession for the limitations in terms of how the generated personas are generated based on work experience in different specialized skills. This is conveyed in terms of the considered paragraphs that discuss attributes for the personas, but there is no discussion in terms of the attributes equating to the work experience and specialization. A persona could have the attributes of: age—32, education—high school GED, income level—$32,000USD, but those aspects are not indicative of the expertise or specialization for generating ideas for this persona. There is no discussion or description as to what information is utilized, how the information is utilized, what model the information is input into, and how the information equates and outputs a persona with the generated work experience and specialized fields. In terms of one of ordinary skill’s understanding with LLM and generative AI, the models provide intakes of different documents, sources, inputs, prompts, information, and other data to tailor the information output of the prompted input. This includes a multitude of information that stems from social media posts, research articles, peer-review information, procedural manuals, open-source documents, printed publications, and other media (movies, images, metadata). This could lead to generating a specialized mechanic based on the model having a specific training based on particular vehicle maintenance manuals or providing the tone and language of a master’s degree educated 40yr old. However, the claimed invention and specification does not provide the particular support or description for providing the generation of the personas to provide the specialized skills outside a list of attributes that are not equivalent disclosure to providing the specific claimed limitation in terms of experience and idea generation for the persona. One of ordinary skill would not recognize what the claimed invention has possession of in terms of generating a persona with the specialized experience and generating ideas based on the work experience as the claimed invention lacks written description with respect to 35 USC 112(a). As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description.
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 towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
In terms of Step 1, claims 1-20 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), “the generative AI-based collaboration method comprising: receiving a first user request for generating a plurality of participant personas associated with a target problem; generating the plurality of participant personas associated with the target problem in accordance with the first user request, the plurality of participant personas representing a specialist having work experience in different specialized fields associated with the target problem; and generating ideas based on work experience of each of the plurality of participant personas in accordance with a second user request indicating generation of ideas by the plurality of participant personas”. The claims are describing a request in terms of a problem, generating personas to address the request, and generating ideas based on the personas and user request. The claims are describing a brainstorming session that a person is utilizing a computer environment (generating personas and query request) to implement the mental process. A person would be able to provide a brainstorming session individually (using imaginative or other market research) or a group of people to provide ideas based on a request using work experience in a particular field. The claims are just describing the brainstorming session within a computer environment and thus falls into an abstract idea grouping of mental process.
The claims are also describing a brainstorming session for ideation between a user and a computer AI persona(s). This falls into describing a social interaction activity between a person and a computer system. Based on the claims considered, the limitations are directed towards interactions or relationships including social activities. In terms of the consideration of the personas, the interpretation and consideration is that the claims are directed towards the activity of a brainstorming interaction and the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within the grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Instead, the determination is based on the activity itself—that is in the interaction between person and personas for brainstorming ideas. As such, the claims fall into the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements with respect to being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1 and 13 are, “A generative AI-based collaboration method performed by at least one computing device, from a user terminal; A generative AI-based collaboration system 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: generating the plurality of participant personas associated with the target problem in accordance with the first user request, the plurality of participant personas representing a specialist having work experience in different specialized fields associated with the target problem”. The additional elements are directed towards computer elements and the generating steps for the participant personas. 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 method performed by at least one computing device, from a user terminal; A generative AI-based collaboration system 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: generating the plurality of participant personas associated with the target problem in accordance with the first user request, the plurality of participant personas representing a specialist having work experience in different specialized fields associated with the target problem”. The additional elements are directed towards computer elements and the generating steps for the participant personas. 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 2-12 and 14-20 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 generating the plurality of participant personas includes: acquiring context information on the target problem; identifying a plurality of specialized fields associated with the target problem based on the context information; and generating a participant persona corresponding to each of the identified specialized fields”, “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 generating the plurality of participant personas further includes: providing characteristic information of the plurality of participant personas to the user terminal; receiving a regeneration request for at least one of the plurality of participant personas from the user terminal; and regenerating at least one of the plurality of participant personas based on the regeneration request”, “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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leeds et al [11,431,660], hereafter Leeds.
Regarding claim 1, Leeds discloses a generative AI-based collaboration method performed by at least one computing device, 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; generating the plurality of participant personas associated with the target problem in accordance with the first user request, the plurality of participant personas representing a specialist having work experience in different specialized fields associated with the target problem; and generating ideas based on work experience of each of the plurality of participant personas in accordance with a second user request indicating generation of ideas by the plurality of participant personas (Fig 22, 23, 25, 32 and C18:42 to C19:12; Leeds discloses a collaborative AI system that a user prompts a group of submind AI elements for proposed solutions to the prompted question/problem. In terms of the personas, Leeds shows a template of a plurality of submind personas that are utilized as subminds for the collaborative chat for the user (figures 22 and 23) and further discussed in the collaborative generation of ideas for the personas described in the submind collaboration [C36:24 to C37:54].).
Regarding claim 2, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 1,
Leeds further discloses wherein the generating the plurality of participant personas includes: acquiring context information on the target problem; identifying a plurality of specialized fields associated with the target problem based on the context information; and generating a participant persona corresponding to each of the identified specialized fields (C47:17 to C48:17; Leeds discloses a healthcare-specialized AI submind that is utilized to receive target information and context with respect to assisting a doctor with an exotic disease. The subminds are generated to provide assistance and scientific papers to provide context and outputs based on the specialized task of healthcare information. This is further discussed in terms of the specific aspect of specialized subminds in C49:17-37 and C50:4-51.).
Regarding claim 3, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 1, 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 (C5:39-59; Leeds discloses personality sliders that provide outcome, style, and presentation control mechanisms for the prompt response in the collaborative conversation.).
Regarding claim 4, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 1, wherein the generating the plurality of participant personas further includes: providing characteristic information of the plurality of participant personas to the user terminal; receiving a regeneration request for at least one of the plurality of participant personas from the user terminal; and regenerating at least one of the plurality of participant personas based on the regeneration request (C43:14-37 and C44:8-33; Leeds discloses that the subminds can be adjusted accordingly based on the persuasion or experience in the conversation and re-submit proposed responses. Further, Leeds provides an updated sensor submind within the collaborative chat that is updated based on malfunction that is reset and restored to collaborative aspects [C6:18-33].).
Regarding claim 5, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 1, 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 (C43:14-37 and C44:8-33; Leeds discloses that the subminds can be adjusted accordingly based on the persuasion or experience in the conversation and re-submit proposed responses. The secondary idea is based on the interpretation of the voting rounds that a proposed idea is voted on and discussed with the subminds to provide a final tally vote/result. In terms of the “except for the first persona”, Leeds’ system provides the first persona as a facilitator that provides the prompts and responses to the subminds within the conversation. Examiner further notes that the voting system described in [C21:20-63] provides bot voting that further includes no self-voting that would fall into the exception interpretation.).
Regarding claim 7, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 1, 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 (C43:14-37 and C44:8-33; Leeds discloses that the subminds can be adjusted accordingly based on the persuasion or experience in the conversation and re-submit proposed responses. The secondary idea is based on the interpretation of the voting rounds that a proposed idea is voted on and discussed with the subminds to provide a final tally vote/result. Leeds discloses [C46:3-22] that a display interface can provide the conversation between bots and output results of the collaboration. Further discussion in terms of the voting and display of voting/results is discussed in C21:5-63.).
Regarding claim 8, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 7, 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 (C21:5-63; Leeds discloses bot roles and provides facilitators and other bot roles that include evaluators for the tally/vote result.).
Regarding claim 9, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 7, 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 (C47:7 to C48:17 and C50:4-44; Leeds discloses that the AI subminds can provide expertise in healthcare based on the trainings and domain knowledge. In terms of the service interpretation, healthcare and the listing of other domain specializations provided in Leeds fall within service.).
Regarding claim 10, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 7, wherein the evaluating the generated ideas includes performing scoring for the ideas by using the plurality of participant personas (C39:39 to C40:15; Leeds discloses different voting and scoring elements for the subminds to select a proposal to present to the user.).
Regarding claim 11, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 10, 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 (C20:47-58; Leeds discloses that the voting for proposed responses includes an SSA (sensibleness and Specificity Average) which is a crowd-source style evaluation.).
Regarding claim 13, Leeds discloses a generative AI-based collaboration system 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 (C13:59 to C14:18 and C50:52-57; Leeds discloses the system elements to implement the AI chat system.):
an operation of receiving a first user request for generating a plurality of participant personas associated with a target problem, from a user terminal; an operation of generating the plurality of participant personas associated with the target problem in accordance with the first user request, the plurality of participant personas representing a specialist having work experience in different specialized fields associated with the target problem; and an operation of generating ideas based on work experience of each of the plurality of participant personas in accordance with a second user request indicating generation of ideas by the plurality of participant personas (Fig 22, 23, 25, 32 and C18:42 to C19:12; Leeds discloses a collaborative AI system that a user prompts a group of submind AI elements for proposed solutions to the prompted question/problem. In terms of the personas, Leeds shows a template of a plurality of submind personas that are utilized as subminds for the collaborative chat for the user (figures 22 and 23) and further discussed in the collaborative generation of ideas for the personas described in the submind collaboration [C36:24 to C37:54].).
Regarding claim 14, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 13, wherein the operation of generating the plurality of participant personas includes: an operation of acquiring context information on the target problem; an operation of identifying a plurality of specialized fields associated with the target problem based on the context information; and an operation of generating a participant persona corresponding to each of the plurality of identified specialized fields (C47:17 to C48:17; Leeds discloses a healthcare-specialized AI submind that is utilized to receive target information and context with respect to assisting a doctor with an exotic disease. The subminds are generated to provide assistance and scientific papers to provide context and outputs based on the specialized task of healthcare information. This is further discussed in terms of the specific aspect of specialized subminds in C49:17-37 and C50:4-51.).
Regarding claim 15, Leeds discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 13, wherein the first user request includes characteristic information for each of the plurality of participant personas, and the operation of generating the plurality of participant personas includes an operation of generating the plurality of participant personas in which the characteristic information is preferentially reflected (C5:39-59; Leeds discloses personality sliders that provide outcome, style, and presentation control mechanisms for the prompt response in the collaborative conversation.).
Regarding claim 16, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of participant personas include a first participant persona, and the operation of generating the ideas includes: an operation of generating a primary idea corresponding to the first participant persona in accordance with the second user request; an operation of generating feedback information by the other participant personas except for the first participant persona with respect to the primary idea; and an operation of generating a secondary idea corresponding to the first participant persona by reflecting the feedback information in the primary idea (C43:14-37 and C44:8-33; Leeds discloses that the subminds can be adjusted accordingly based on the persuasion or experience in the conversation and re-submit proposed responses. The secondary idea is based on the interpretation of the voting rounds that a proposed idea is voted on and discussed with the subminds to provide a final tally vote/result. In terms of the “except for the first persona”, Leeds’ system provides the first persona as a facilitator that provides the prompts and responses to the subminds within the conversation. Examiner further notes that the voting system described in [C21:20-63] provides bot voting that further includes no self-voting that would fall into the exception interpretation.).
Regarding claim 17, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer programs further include instructions for: an operation of evaluating the generated ideas; an operation selecting an optimal idea based on the evaluated result; and an operation of visualizing the optimal idea and providing the visualized idea to the user terminal (C43:14-37 and C44:8-33; Leeds discloses that the subminds can be adjusted accordingly based on the persuasion or experience in the conversation and re-submit proposed responses. The secondary idea is based on the interpretation of the voting rounds that a proposed idea is voted on and discussed with the subminds to provide a final tally vote/result. Leeds discloses [C46:3-22] that a display interface can provide the conversation between bots and output results of the collaboration. Further discussion in terms of the voting and display of voting/results is discussed in C21:5-63.).
Regarding claim 18, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 17, wherein the operation of evaluating the generated ideas includes: an operation selecting any one of the plurality of participant personas as an evaluator; and an operation of grouping the ideas by using the participant persona selected as the evaluator (C21:5-63; Leeds discloses bot roles and provides facilitators and other bot roles that include evaluators for the tally/vote result.).
Regarding claim 19, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 17, wherein the operation of evaluating the generated ideas includes: an operation of generating a user persona representing an end user for a service or product associated with the target problem; and an operation of grouping the ideas by using the generated user persona (Fig 32, C47:7 to C48:17 and C50:4-44; Leeds discloses that the AI subminds can provide expertise in healthcare based on the trainings and domain knowledge. In terms of the service interpretation, healthcare and the listing of other domain specializations provided in Leeds fall within service.).
Regarding claim 20, Leeds further discloses the generative AI-based collaboration system of claim 17, wherein the operation of evaluating the generated ideas includes an operation of performing scoring for the ideas by using the plurality of participant personas (C39:39 to C40:15; Leeds discloses different voting and scoring elements for the subminds to select a proposal to present to the user.).
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(s) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeds et al [11,431,660], hereafter Leeds, in view of Cronin et al [2020/0066259], hereafter Cronin.
Regarding claim 6, Leeds discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Leeds does not specifically teach regeneration of generating ideas;
Cronin teaches the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 1, 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 (Fig 12 and paragraphs [112-119]; Cronin teaches a similar AI collaboration/assistance system that specifically provides a regeneration aspect for the user prompted to provide additional idea/creativity aspects within the interface. The combination is that Leeds provides the collaborative AI chat system which includes idea generation alongside a plurality of personas and Cronin provides the specific aspect of regeneration of ideas.).
Leeds discloses a collaborative AI system that provides personas and generated ideas, however, Leeds does not specifically teach regeneration request for the generated ideas.
Cronin teaches a similar AI system that specifically provides regeneration of ideas between an AI bot and a user.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the collaborative AI system that provides personas and generated ideas of Leeds the ability to include a similar AI system that specifically provides regeneration of ideas between an AI bot and a user as taught by Cronin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Leeds discloses the above-enclosed limitations of the generative AI-based collaboration method of claim 7, however, Leeds does not specifically disclose a prototype;
Cronin teaches wherein the providing the visualized idea to the user terminal includes generating a prototype based on the selected optimal idea (Fig 15 and paragraphs [137-143]; Cronin teaches in the similar AI system that after generated ideas between the AI and the user that the information is compiled into a disclosure report (interpreted as prototype). Within the combination, Leeds provides the collaboration and Cronin provides the similar ideation generation and subsequent post ideation report/disclosure between the AI and the user.).
Leeds discloses a collaborative AI system that provides personas and generated ideas, however, Leeds does not specifically teach providing a prototype based on the ideas.
Cronin teaches a similar AI system that specifically provides generation of ideas and generation of a report (prototype).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the collaborative AI system that provides personas and generated ideas of Leeds the ability to include a similar AI system that specifically provides generation of ideas and generation of a report (prototype) as taught by Cronin since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang [10,692,006] (crowdsource chatbot);
Watson et al [11,971,914] (healthcare/doctor AI system with query and LLM response);
Hsieh [2025/0173511] (LLM personality);
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