DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 3/6/25.
Examiner notes that this application claims foreign priority to 2024-099958 (Japan).
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 6/20/24, which stems from the aforementioned application.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 6 recites “an estimation processing unit that estimates a situation of the group in a chat room by using the generative Al based on message histories.” (Emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 8-9, in part, describe a method comprising: identifying personal agents for users in a group, inquiring of those agents for information used to provide an advertisement, generating “advertisement selection information” from that information, and providing the advertisement selection information to an advertisement provider so an advertisement can be provided to the group. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of targeted advertising, i.e., collecting information about users, analyzing it to determine what advertising is appropriate for a group, and using the result to drive ad selection and delivery, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising and marketing activities). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: providing the ad selection information to an ad provider. Dependent claim 2 further discloses providing an ad to the group. Dependent claim 5 further discloses receiving settings to form a group. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including an “information processing apparatus” comprising various “units” that perform the respective functions of the method; and “personal agents” associated with each user. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Examiner further notes that the “units” and “personal agents” are nothing more than features of computer software (as opposed to hardware components). Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Dependent claim 6 further describes the use of AI to estimating a situation of the group in a chat room based on message histories of the users. Examiner notes that this feature amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. Generic computers connected to a network).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2–7 further recite variations of this concept, including: actually providing the advertisement to the group based on the generated advertisement selection information (claim 2); estimating a “persona” (e.g., common attributes/interests) of the group from information provided by the personal agents (claims 3–4); forming the group for a group chat and estimating a “situation of the group in a chat room by using the generative AI based on message histories” and then generating advertisement selection information based on that situation (claims 5–6); and configuring each personal agent to ask its user whether information can be provided in response to the inquiry (claim 7). Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1-9 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roundtree (US 2014/0344953 A1) in view of Miyajima (US 2019/0050708 A1).
Claims 1 and 8-9: Roundtree discloses an information processing apparatus, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium (figs. 1-3 and 17-18), comprising:
An identification unit that identifies a plurality of personal agents each being associated with a corresponding user among a plurality of users who are grouped (FIGS. 11–13; Paragraphs 0047, 0060, 0110-0111. Roundtree describes personas or advertars each representing a user, where persona records store demographic and interest information as tags and probabilities and are managed by an audience engine that defines audiences (groups) of users based on those personas. Thus, Roundtree’s audience engine functions as an identification unit that identifies a plurality of user-associated persona entities (personal agents) for users who are grouped into audiences for advertising.).
Roundtree further discloses a method that uses persona-based information to target and provide advertisements to audiences, but does not explicitly describe “an inquiry unit that makes an inquiry to the plurality of personal agents that are identified by the identification unit about information that is used to provide an advertisement to a group corresponding to the plurality of users”.
Miyajima, however, discloses an inquiry unit that makes an inquiry to the plurality of personal agents that are identified by the identification unit about information that is used to provide an advertisement to a group corresponding to the plurality of users (FIGS. 3, 13–14; Paragraphs 0108–0110, 0118, 0180, 0181–0187. Miyajima describes an agent server including an advertisement insertion processing section that, in the course of dialogue, monitors conversations, issues questions, and obtains responses and related information used to determine or insert advertisement content into the agent’s reply, thereby making inquiries to an agent/dialogue component about information used to provide advertisements).
Roundtree further discloses a generation unit that generates advertisement selection information that is information that is used to select the advertisement by using pieces of information that are provided by the plurality of personal agents (FIGS. 11–14; Paragraphs 0047, 0060, 0110, 0111. Roundtree’s audience engine uses persona-derived information (demographic, interest, and other attributes) to generate audience definitions and to select advertisements to be delivered to those audiences, which constitutes advertisement selection information used to select the advertisement), but does not expressly state that the pieces of information are “provided by the plurality of personal agents in response to the inquiry that is made by the inquiry unit”.
Miyajima, however, discloses a method in which information is provided by the plurality of personal agents in response to the inquiry that is made by the inquiry unit (FIGS. 3, 13–14; Paragraphs 0108–0110, 0118, 0180, 0181–0187. Miyajima discloses that the agent server obtains information used for advertisement selection from the agent/dialogue component as a result of questions and dialogue flow, where responses and associated fields in the advertisement database (including triggering questions, conditions, and probabilities) are used by the advertisement insertion processing section to determine advertisement content).
Finally, Roundtree further discloses a providing unit that provides the advertisement selection information that is generated by the generation unit to an advertisement provider (e.g., FIGS. 11–14; Paragraphs 0047, 0060, 0110-0111. Roundtree’s audience engine outputs audience definitions, persona-based targeting information, and corresponding advertising selection results to advertising systems or brand owners that act as advertisement providers for delivering advertisements to the identified audiences), but does not explicitly label this output as “advertisement selection information” and “advertisement provider.”
Miyajima, however, further discloses a method comprising advertisement selection information and an advertisement provider (FIGS. 3, 13–14; Paragraphs 0108–0110, 0118, 0180, 0181–0187. Miyajima teaches providing advertisement selection and insertion information from the agent server and advertisement insertion processing section to an advertisement distribution apparatus that performs ad delivery, which functions as an advertisement provider.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine these features of Miyajima with those of Roundtree. One would have been motivated to do this in order to adapt Roundtree’s persona- and audience-based advertising platform so that it issues explicit inquiries via personal/agent components, acquires additional dialogue-derived information, and uses that richer information, in the manner of Miyajima’s agent-server advertisement-insertion mechanisms, as further input to Roundtree’s ad-selection logic for grouped users, thereby improving personalization and effectiveness of advertisements provided to the group.
Claim 2: Roundtree discloses a system wherein the providing unit provides, to the group, an advertisement (Figs. 11-14. Roundtree’s audience engine selects advertising content for an audience defined by personas and delivers that advertising content to the users in the audience (i.e., the group) via the advertising system (e.g., delivery of ads to persona-defined audiences)), but does not appear to explicitly describe a system in which the advertisement “is provided by the advertisement provider in response to provision of the advertisement selection information to the group.”
Miyajima, however, discloses a system in which the advertisement is provided by the advertisement provider in response to provision of the advertisement selection information to the group (FIGS. 1, 3, 9, 13–14. Miyajima describes an agent server that generates advertisement-related selection or insertion information and provides it to an advertisement distribution apparatus, which, acting as an advertisement provider, uses that information to provide the advertisement to user terminals belonging to the relevant chat group; description of advertisement distribution apparatus receiving advertisement information from the server and delivering ads).
The rationale for combining Miyajima with Roundtree is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 3: Roundtree discloses a system wherein the generation unit includes an estimation processing unit that estimates a persona of the group … and a generation processing unit that generates the advertisement selection information based on the persona of the group that is estimated by the estimation processing unit (Figs. 11-13. Roundtree’s audience engine aggregates persona information for users in an audience to derive group-level audience characteristics (a group persona) and uses those derived audience/persona characteristics to generate information used for advertisement selection for that audience (e.g., personas combined into audiences and used to select ads), but does not appear to explicitly describe that the persona of the group is estimated “based on pieces of information that are provided by the plurality of personal agents in response to an inquiry that is made by the inquiry unit.”
Miyajima, however, discloses a system in which the persona-like information used for advertisement selection is obtained as pieces of information that are provided by the plurality of personal agents in response to an inquiry that is made by the inquiry unit (Figs. 3 and 13-14. Miyajima’s agent server, through its advertisement insertion processing section, issues questions to agent/dialogue components and receives responses and related data fields that are used to determine advertisement content, i.e., information is provided from agents in response to inquiries and is then used to generate advertisement selection information (e.g., question/response-based advertisement determination)).
The rationale for combining Miyajima with Roundtree is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 4: Roundtree discloses a system wherein the estimation processing unit estimates, as the persona of the group, one of a common attribute and a common interest among the plurality of users (FIGS. 11–13; Paragraphs 0047, 0060, 0110-0111. Roundtree’s audience engine defines audiences and group personas based on shared persona characteristics, such as common demographic attributes and common interests among the users associated with the personas in the audience, and uses those shared attributes/interests to characterize the group for ad targeting (e.g., personas tagged with demographics/interests; audiences defined by common attributes/interests)).
Claim 5: The Roundtree/Miyajima combination discloses those limitations cited above. Miyajima, however, further discloses a reception unit that receives setting to form a group of the plurality of users for a group chat among the plurality of users (FIGS. 1–6; Paragraphs 0019–0027. Miyajima’s information processing apparatus manages group chat functionality, including user information, chat setting information, and conversation history tables for chat groups, and necessarily receives settings that define which users belong to which chat group and how the group chat is formed (e.g., description of group chat, user information table, chat setting information table, and group chat configuration.).
The rationale for combining Miyajima with Roundtree is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 7: Roundtree discloses personal agents in the form of personas associated with users, but does not appear to explicitly describe that “each of the personal agents makes an inquiry to the user if it is possible to provide information corresponding to the inquiry, and provides the information corresponding to the inquiry based on an answer that is given by the user.”
Miyajima, however, discloses a system wherein each of the personal agents makes an inquiry to the user if it is possible to provide information corresponding to the inquiry, and provides the information corresponding to the inquiry based on an answer that is given by the user (FIGS. 3, 13–14; Paragraphs 0108–0110, 0118, 0180, 0181–0187. Miyajima’s agent/dialogue components, under control of the agent server and advertisement insertion processing section, determine when to ask questions to the user, issue those questions, receive the user’s answers, and then use the answers as information for determining or inserting advertisement content into the agent’s responses (e.g., dialogue flow with questions and responses; advertisement insertion based on user answers). This corresponds to per-agent behavior in which each agent makes an inquiry to the user when appropriate, and then provides information (e.g., advertisement-related content) based on the user’s answer.).
The rationale for combining Miyajima with Roundtree is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roundtree (US 2014/0344953 A1) and Miyajima (US 2019/0050708 A1) in view of Watson (US 12,198,163 B2).
The Roundtree/Miyajima combination discloses those limitations cited above. Miyajima, however, further discloses a system describing message histories of the plurality of users U in the chat room of the group chat (FIGS. 1–2, 6; Paragraphs 0019–0027. Miyajima’s information processing apparatus for a chat service maintains a conversation history table for messages exchanged among a plurality of users participating in a group chat room, storing message histories per group chat so that the system can perform processing based on those histories (e.g., description of conversation history table and group chat message flow).
Neither Roundtree nor Miyajima discloses a system that contains an “estimation processing unit that estimates a situation of the group in a chat room by using the generative Al based on message histories of the plurality of users U in the chat room of the group chat; and a generation processing unit that generates the advertisement selection information based on the situation that is estimated by the estimation processing unit.”
Watson, however, discloses a system in which deep learning models (client and master ML models) process historical interaction data (time-series click histories and other analytics describing user engagement with advertisements, stored in user profiles and training data) and use those histories to dynamically select tailored advertisements, thereby operating as an “estimation processing unit that estimates a situation of the group … by using the generative Al based on message histories …; and a generation processing unit that generates the advertisement selection information based on the situation that is estimated by the estimation processing unit” in functional terms (e.g., tracking analytics and click histories, training deep learning models, and using the models to select advertisements based on the learned state; FIG. 2; 200–205; FIG. 3; 300–350; FIG. 4; 400–425; FIG. 5; 500–525; FIG. 6; 600–630).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine these features of Watson with those of the Roundtree/Miyajima system. One would have been motivated to do this in order to adapt the existing group-chat-based advertising platform of Roundtree and Miyajima so that, instead of relying only on heuristic or rule-based use of chat histories and persona information, it employs Watson’s deep-learning (generative-style) advertisement-selection techniques to estimate the group’s situation from message histories and generate advertisement selection information based on that estimated situation, thereby improving the accuracy and contextual relevance of advertisements selected and delivered to the chat group.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not relied upon in the aforementioned rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Kothandaraman et al. (20250209348), directed to an intelligent virtual assistant for conversing with multiple users.
Ryan et al. (20250041736), directed to processing devices and methods for generating a group of users.
Peris et al. (12499470), directed to an intelligent electronic advertisement generation and distribution method.
Ciano et al. (11886823), directed to a method for dynamically constructing and configuring a conversational agent learning model.
Publicover et al. (12506918), directed to a method and system for providing customized entertainment content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621