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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “acquires at least one topic in which closeness of a distance between a user embedding representation, which is an embedding representation in which a user is represented by a real number vector, and a topic embedding representation, which is an embedding representation in which a topic is represented by a real number vector, corresponds to a predetermined condition,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “acquiring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what topics’ embeddings are closest to the user’s embedding, on any basis of “embedding” and “closeness.” This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “acquires a hobby corresponding to a topic acquired by the topic acquisition unit based on correspondence information representing a correspondence relationship between the topic and the hobby,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “acquiring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what hobbies correspond to the topic. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “outputs a hobby acquired by the hobby acquisition unit as hobby information for setting the parameter of the character corresponding to the user,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “outputting” encompasses a person forming a judgment, on any basis, as to what settings correspond to the hobby. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining hobby information corresponding to a user for setting a parameter of a character. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of determining hobby information corresponding to a user for setting a parameter of a character is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements, that the topic acquiring is performed by “a topic acquisition unit,” that the hobby acquiring is performed by “a hobby acquisition unit,” and that that the hobby information for setting the parameter of the character corresponding to the user acquiring is performed by “a setting information output unit,” are mere instruction to apply their respective abstract ideas that they perform, because each recites the outcome of a unit performing their respective abstract idea without detail of how the outcome is performed. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of determining hobby information corresponding to a user for setting a parameter of a character because the claim as an ordered combination is nothing but outcomes without details of how the outcomes are accomplished. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 2:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the hobby acquisition unit refers to a thesaurus in which a relationship between a plurality of words including at least a hobby word representing a hobby and a topic word representing a topic is defined as the correspondence information, and acquires a hobby corresponding to the hobby word associated with the topic word corresponding to the topic acquired by the topic acquisition unit,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “referring” and “acquiring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what hobbies correspond to the topic in the thesaurus. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 3:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “refers to a given hobby list including a plurality of hobby words representing hobbies,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “referring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what hobby words exist. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “calculates a degree of similarity between each of topic words representing the topic acquired by the topic acquisition unit and a hobby word included in the hobby list as the correspondence information,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “acquires a hobby corresponding to a hobby word of which the calculated degree of similarity is equal to or greater than a given threshold value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “acquiring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what hobbies correspond to a most similar hobby word. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely acquiring a hobby. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 4:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the hobby acquisition unit calculates the degree of similarity between the topic word and the hobby word using Word2Vec,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 5:
The abstract idea of determining hobby information corresponding to a user for setting a parameter of a character is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “an attribute acquisition unit that acquires attribute information associated with the hobby acquired by the hobby acquisition unit with reference to a given attribute list in which the hobby and attribute information on a person are associated with each other,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “the setting information output unit outputs the attribute information acquired by the attribute acquisition unit as information for setting a parameter of the character corresponding to the user,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of determining hobby information corresponding to a user for setting a parameter of a character because the claim as an ordered combination is nothing but outcomes without details of how the outcomes are accomplished. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “an attribute acquisition unit that acquires attribute information associated with the hobby acquired by the hobby acquisition unit with reference to a given attribute list in which the hobby and attribute information on a person are associated with each other,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “the setting information output unit outputs the attribute information acquired by the attribute acquisition unit as information for setting a parameter of the character corresponding to the user,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification ¶ [0004], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A); see MPEP § 2161.01.
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 6:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the topic acquisition unit acquires a predetermined number of topics in which the closeness of the distance between the user embedding representation of the user and the topic embedding representation of the topic is high level, or acquires a topic in which the distance between the user embedding representation of the user and the topic embedding representation of the topic is equal to or less than a predetermined degree,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “acquiring” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what topics’ embeddings are closest to the user’s embedding. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Prior Art and Allowable Subject Matter
As per claim 1, the prior art does not teach the idea of setting a parameter for a character to be activated in a virtual space based on hobby information corresponding to a topic having an embedding representation closest to an embedding representation of a user.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific claimed rules of claim 7 for how to determine an embedding of topic and user incorporating user utterance embeddings in the claimed manner integrates the recited abstract idea of determining hobby information corresponding to a user for setting a parameter of a character as an ordered combination by improving the experience of other users of a virtual space by maintaining the experience of a player-controlled avatar. Specification ¶ [0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights