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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 4/24/2025. Claims 1-24 are pending in this office action. This is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 7/21/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving input, analyzing the received input according to rules (a model), and providing customer service based on the received and analyzed input.
The idea of receiving input, analyzing the received input according to rules (a model), and providing customer service based on the received and analyzed input is subject matter related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is a certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity including receiving user input which includes an inquiry for a product for sale, creating a response based on a set of rules (a model), and providing a response where the response includes an animated performance by the human, were the human can perform the one or more skills that were selected. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the human (or customer service representative) is instead a syntenic human on an interactive video interface (IVF) with a video camera and an interactive screen that provides responses via video and the set of rules (model) that creates the responses is a large language model (LLM) merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details to how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Rather here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer actually performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further these additional elements are considered merely generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of a customer representative providing a checkout function. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 3, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of a customer representative providing short form information related to a product for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that that information is provided via a video merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 4, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of a customer representative interaction enabling the purchase of the product for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that that interaction is provided via a video merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
The additional element that this is commerce transaction is an “ecommerce” purchase merely results in apply it. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further this additional element is considered as generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 5, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of providing a representation of the product for sale at the transaction (e.g. showing the user what product they are purchasing). This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this commerce transaction is an “ecommerce” transaction and is provided “on screen” merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of enabling a commerce purchase includes enabling purchase of a cart. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this commerce transaction is an “ecommerce” transaction merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as discussed above.
The additional element that this is purchase is “virtual” merely results in apply it. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further this additional element is considered as generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 7, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of purchasing something suggested or shown quickly (e.g. short form) from a customer service representative. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this the purchase is “virtual” and the customer service interaction is “video” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of a customer service representative providing one or more skills including calling a human for help, coordinating a delivery, sending a reminder, scheduling a meeting, or checking an inventory for a product for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 9, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of providing a way for a user to try on a product for purchase. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this is “virtual” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 10, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of showing reviews for a product. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 11, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of showing comparison prices for a product for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 12, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of recommending one or more other products based on the inquiry. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of wherein the one or more skills include sending content to the user where the content is related to the inquiry. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 14, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of a customer service representative recognizing the product for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this is done by the IVF results in merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 15, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of recognizing the user. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 16, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of recognizing the user via voice. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this is done by the IVF merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
Further the additional element that the IVF includes a microphone merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details to how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Rather here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer actually performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further this additional element of the microphone is considered merely generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 17, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of the customer service representative recognizing purchase history or previous interactions with the user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the customer service representative is an “ IVF” result in merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of initiating by the user an interaction with the customer service representative. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the customer service representative is an “ IVF” result in merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 19, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of initiating interaction when a minimum distance from a customer service representative. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the customer service representative is an “ IVF” result in merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 20, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of training a customer service representative based on a private knowledgebase including a plurality of details about a product for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that the customer service representative includes an LLM merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 21, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of the inquiry includes one or more additional products for sale. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 22, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity of classifying user input based on a type of conversation, where the type is based on collecting, and responding is based on the type of conversation. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that the customer service representative includes an lightweight LLM merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above (see LLM model claim 1).
As per claim 23, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity including receiving user input which includes an inquiry for a product for sale, creating a response based on a set of rules (model), and providing a response where the response includes an animated performance by the human, where the human can perform the one or more skills that were selected. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the human (or customer service representative) is instead a syntenic human on an interactive video interface (IVF) with a video camera and an interactive screen that provides responses via video, the set of rules (model) that creates the responses is a large language model, and is being performed by a computer readable medium “a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium for video processing, the computer program product comprising code which causes one or more processors to perform operations of:” ,merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details to how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Rather here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer actually performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further these additional elements are considered merely generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 24, the claims recite certain method of organizing human activity including receiving user input which includes an inquiry for a product for sale, creating a response based on a set of rules (model), and providing a response where the response includes an animated performance by the human, where the human can perform the one or more skills that were selected. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the human (or customer service representative) is instead a syntenic human on an interactive video interface (IVF) with a video camera and an interactive screen that provides responses via video, the set of rules (model) that creates the responses is a large language model, and is being performed by a computer system running software “a computer system for video processing comprising: a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured to:”, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to recite details to how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claim limitations attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Rather here the additional elements merely provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer actually performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Further these additional elements are considered nothing more than generally linking it to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10, and 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter, II et al. (United States Patent Number: US 10,628,635) further in view of Barkan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0182489).
As per claim 1,Carpenter, II et al. teaches A computer-implemented method for video processing comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: holographic assistant displays a computer generated human like hologram capable of carrying on conversation in real time with a user).
accessing, by a user, an interactive video interface (IVF), wherein the IVF includes a video camera (see column 6 lines 48-50 and column 7 lines 9-10, Examiner’s note: camera first detects movement within a predefined distance from the camera and then takes multiple pictures. Further teaches input via a webcam).
and an interactive screen, (see column 7 lines 8-12, Examiner’s note: interactive screen where a user can input information into a screen).
wherein the IVF includes a synthetic human, (see Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: shows a syntenic human, reference character 104).
and wherein the IVF is located in a physical store; (see abstract and Figure 8, Examiner’s note: system is intended to be used in retail, offices, business and personal settings and Figure 8 shows it in a store).
collecting, by the IVF, user input, wherein the user input comprises an inquiry, wherein the inquiry is based on a product for sale; (see column 6 lines 6- lines 15-20 and Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: converse with the user to answer questions about a product, provide reviews, and utilize sales software to increase sales).
creating a response, by the IVF, wherein the response is based on natural language processing, and wherein the response includes selecting, by the natural language processing, one or more skills, wherein the selecting is based on the creating; (see column 17 lines 15-30 and 45-60, Examiner’s note: determining information from speech and providing a response based on natural language processing).
producing a video segment, wherein the video segment is based on the response, and wherein the video segment includes an animated performance by the synthetic human; and responding, by the synthetic human, to the inquiry, wherein the responding includes the video segment, and wherein the responding includes performing, by the IVF, the one or more skills that were selected (see column 8 lines 1-20, column 6 lines 64-67, column 9 lines 15-35, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a response to a user request, where the user is provided information to make it look like a human is talking to them, with mouth movement and eye gaze through CGI).
While Carpenter, II et al. clearly teaches processing speech through natural language processing to provide responses, Carpenter does not expressly teach a specific type of natural language processing of a large language model (LLM)
Barkan et al. which is in the art of language models for question answering (see paragraph 0001) teaches a specific type of natural language processing of a large language model (LLM) (see paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0053, and 0074, Examiner’s note: teaches the DSE model is lightweight and includes the BERT model which is a large language model, it is noted that claim 22 further defines this LLM as lightweight).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Barkan et al. with the motivation of using another type of known language model to answer questions without the time consuming and computationally expensive costs of using traditional language models (see Barkan et al. paragraph 0001), when using natural language processing to provide responses to users across various settings is known (See Carpenter, II et al. column 7 lines 50- column 8 lines 15).
As per claim 2, Carpenter, II et al. teaches
wherein the one or more skills include a checkout function (see Figure 7B, Examiner’s note: checkout of a burger).
As per claim 8, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include calling a human for help, coordinating a delivery, sending a reminder, scheduling a meeting, or checking an inventory for the product for sale (see Figure 7a-7c and column 15 lines 55-65, Examiner’s note: ordering food at a kiosk through a conversational holographic assistant, this reads on “coordinating a delivery” of a burger).
As per claim 10, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include showing one or more reviews of the product for sale (see column 16 lines 62-67, Examiner’s note: provide movie reviews and summaries of various movies).
As per claim 12, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include recommending one or more other products, wherein the one or more other products are based on the inquiry (see column 8 lines 2-7, Examiner’s note: holographic person capable of asking the user questions, gaining insight into user tasks, then providing the user with a recommended movie that is currently showing and show time).
As per claim 13, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include sending content to the user, wherein the content is related to the inquiry. (see column 8 lines 2-7, Examiner’s note: holographic person capable of asking the user questions, gaining insight into user tasks, then providing the user with a recommended movie that is currently showing and show time).
As per claim 14, Carpenter, II et al teaches
further comprising recognizing, by the IVF, the product for sale. (see column 8 lines 2-7, Examiner’s note: holographic person capable of asking the user questions, gaining insight into user tasks, then providing the user with a recommended movie that is currently showing and show time).
As per claim 15, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the recognizing includes recognizing the user (see column 7 lines 20-30, column 8 lines 5-17, and column 11 lines 20-35, Examiner’s note: using facial recognition to determine if the user is a repeat users and then providing information based on a user’s preferences and credit cards).
As per claim 16, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the recognizing includes performing, by the IVF, voice recognition on the user, wherein the IVF includes a microphone (see column 5 lines 63-67, Examiner’s note: voice record to be used to differentiate between users for future interactions).
As per claim 17, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the recognizing includes a purchase history or previous interactions with the IVF. (see column 7 lines 20-30, column 8 lines 5-17, and column 11 lines 20-35, Examiner’s note: using facial recognition to determine if the user is a repeat users and then providing information based on a user’s preferences and credit cards).
As per claim 18, Carpenter, II et al teaches
further comprising initiating, by the user, an interaction with the IVF (see column 10 lines 37-42, Examiner’s note: user is within a predetermined distance from the camera, the holographic assistant takes pictures to start interaction).
As per claim 19, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the initiating includes standing, by the user, within a minimum distance from the IVF. (see column 10 lines 37-42, Examiner’s note: user is within a predetermined distance from the camera, the holographic assistant takes pictures to start interaction).
As per claim 20, Carpenter, II et al teaches
further comprising training the natural language processing, wherein the training is based on a private knowledgebase, wherein the private knowledgebase includes a plurality of details about the product for sale (see column 8 lines 38-55 and column 8 lines 60- column 9 lines 10, Examiner’s note: speech training algorithms for natural language processing and updating the system over time).
While Carpenter, II et al. clearly teaches processing speech through natural language processing to provide responses, Carpenter does not expressly teach a specific type of natural language processing of LLM
Barkan et al. which is in the art of language models for question answering (see paragraph 0001) teaches specific type of natural language processing of LLM (see paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0053, and 0074, Examiner’s note: teaches the DSE model is lightweight and includes the BERT model which is a large language model, it is noted that claim 22 further defines this LLM as lightweight).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Barkan et al. with the motivation of using another type of known language model to answer questions without the time consuming and computationally expensive costs of using traditional language models (see Barkan et al. paragraph 0001), when using natural language processing to provide responses to users across various settings is known (See Carpenter, II et al. column 7 lines 50- column 8 lines 15).
As per claim 21, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the inquiry is based on one or more additional products for sale (see column 16 lines 62-67, Examiner’s note: provide potential customers with answers to questions like movie ratings, reviews, show times, and summaries of various movies).
As per claim 22, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the collecting includes classifying, by one or more natural language processing and machine learning, the user input, wherein the classifying identifies a type of conversation, wherein the classifying is based on the collecting, and wherein the responding is based on the type of conversation (see column 6 lines 15-20, column 7 lines 44-47, column 7 lines 55-60, Examiner’s note: breaks down the meaning of the text and determines the correct response to provide back, where responses can be answers to questions about products, product reviews, etc.).
While Carpenter, II et al. clearly teaches processing speech through natural language processing to provide responses, Carpenter does not expressly teach a specific type of natural language processing of a lightweight LLM
Barkan et al. which is in the art of language models for question answering (see paragraph 0001) teaches specific type of natural language processing of a lightweight LLM (see paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0053, 0074, Examiner’s note: teaches the DSE model is lightweight and includes the BERT model which is a large language model).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Barkan et al. with the motivation of using another type of known language model to answer questions without the time consuming and computationally expensive costs of using traditional language models (see Barkan et al. paragraph 0001), when using natural language processing to provide responses to users across various settings is known (See Carpenter, II et al. column 7 lines 50- column 8 lines 15).
As per claim 23, Carpenter, II et al teaches A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium for video processing, the computer program product comprising code which causes one or more processors to perform operations of: (see column 4 lines 23-29, Examiner’s note: non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon when executed cause the processors to perform operations comprising:).
accessing, by a user, an interactive video interface (IVF), wherein the IVF includes a video camera (see column 6 lines 48-50 and column 7 lines 9-10, Examiner’s note: camera first detects movement within a predefined distance from the camera and then takes multiple pictures. Further teaches input via a webcam).
and an interactive screen, (see column 7 lines 8-12, Examiner’s note: interactive screen where a user can input information into a screen).
wherein the IVF includes a synthetic human, (see Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: shows a syntenic human, reference character 104).
and wherein the IVF is located in a physical store; (see abstract and Figure 8, Examiner’s note: system is intended to be used in retail, offices, business and personal settings and Figure 8 shows it in a store).
collecting, by the IVF, user input, wherein the user input comprises an inquiry, wherein the inquiry is based on a product for sale; (see column 6 lines 6- lines 15-20 and Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: converse with the user can answer questions about a product, provide reviews, and utilize sales software to increase sales).
creating a response, by the IVF, wherein the response is based on natural language processing, and wherein the response includes selecting, by the natural language processing, one or more skills, wherein the selecting is based on the creating; (see column 17 lines 15-30 and 45-60, Examiner’s note: determining information from speech and providing a response based on natural language processing).
producing a video segment, wherein the video segment is based on the response, and wherein the video segment includes an animated performance by the synthetic human; and responding, by the synthetic human, to the inquiry, wherein the responding includes the video segment, and wherein the responding includes performing, by the IVF, the one or more skills that were selected. (see column 8 lines 1-20, column 6 lines 64-67, column 9 lines 15-35, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a response to a user request, where the user is provided information to make it look like a human is talking to them, with mouth movement and eye gaze through CGI).
While Carpenter, II et al. clearly teaches processing speech through natural language processing to provide responses, Carpenter does not expressly teach a specific type of natural language processing of a large language model (LLM)
Barkan et al. which is in the art of language models for question answering (see paragraph 0001) teaches specific type of natural language processing of a large language model (LLM)LLM (see paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0053, 0074, Examiner’s note: teaches the DSE model is lightweight and includes the BERT model which is a large language model, it is noted that claim 22 further defines this LLM as lightweight).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Barkan et al. with the motivation of using another type of known language model to answer questions without the time consuming and computationally expensive costs of using traditional language models (see Barkan et al. paragraph 0001), when using natural language processing to provide responses to users across various settings is known (See Carpenter, II et al. column 7 lines 50- column 8 lines 15).
As per claim 24, Carpenter, II et al teaches A computer system for video processing comprising: a memory which stores instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured to: (see column 4 lines 23-29, Examiner’s note: non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon when executed cause the processors to perform operations comprising:).
access, by a user, an interactive video interface (IVF), wherein the IVF includes a video camera, (see column 6 lines 48-50 and column 7 lines 9-10, Examiner’s note: camera first detects movement within a predefined distance from the camera and then takes multiple pictures. Further teaches input via a webcam).
and an interactive screen (see column 7 lines 8-12, Examiner’s note: interactive screen where a user can input information into a screen).
wherein the IVF includes a synthetic human, (see Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: shows a syntenic human, reference character 104).
and wherein the IVF is located in a physical store; (see abstract and Figure 8, Examiner’s note: system is intended to be used in retail, offices, business and personal settings and Figure 8 shows it in a store).
collect, by the IVF, user input, wherein the user input comprises an inquiry, wherein the inquiry is based on a product for sale; (see column 6 lines 6- lines 15-20 an Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: converse with the user can answer questions about a product, provide reviews, and utilize sales software to increase sales)
create a response, by the IVF, wherein the response is based on a natural language processing, and wherein the response includes selecting, by the natural language processing, one or more skills, wherein the selecting is based on the creating; (see column 17 lines 15-30 and 45-60, Examiner’s note: determining information from speech and providing a response based on natural language processing).
produce a video segment, wherein the video segment is based on the response, and wherein the video segment includes an animated performance by the synthetic human; and respond, by the synthetic human, to the inquiry, wherein the responding includes the video segment, and wherein the responding includes performing, by the IVF, the one or more skills that were selected. (see column 8 lines 1-20, column 6 lines 64-67, and column 9 lines 15-35, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a response to a user request, where the user is provided information to make it look like a human is talking to them, with mouth movement and eye gaze through CGI).
While Carpenter, II et al. clearly teaches processing speech through natural language processing to provide responses, Carpenter does not expressly teach a specific type of natural language processing of a large language model (LLM)
Barkan et al. which is in the art of language models for question answering (see paragraph 0001) teaches specific type of natural language processing of a large language model (LLM)LLM (see paragraphs 0016, 0021, 0053, 0074, Examiner’s note: teaches the DSE model is lightweight and includes the BERT model which is a large language model, it is noted that claim 22 further defines this LLM as lightweight).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Barkan et al. with the motivation of using another type of known language model to answer questions without the time consuming and computationally expensive costs of using traditional language models (see Barkan et al. paragraph 0001), when using natural language processing to provide responses to users across various settings is known (See Carpenter, II et al. column 7 lines 50- column 8 lines 15).
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter, II et al. (United States Patent Number: US 10,628,635) further in view of Barkan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0182489) further in view of Gibson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0246961).
As per claim 3, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include playing a video relevant to the product for sale. (see column 8 lines 1-20, column 6 lines 64-67, column 9 lines 15-35, Examiner’s note: teaches providing a response to a user request, where the user is provided information to make it look like a human is talking to them, with mouth movement and eye gaze through CGI).
Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. does not expressly teach that a video can be a short-from video.
However, Gibson et al. which is in the art of providing personalized content to the user (see abstract) teaches a video can be a short-from video (see paragraph 0003 and 0022, Examiner’s note: personalized content where one type of content is short term videos).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Gibson et al. with the motivation of providing recommendations through known types of media content like short form videos (see Gibson et al. paragraphs 0003 and 0022), when providing things like reviews through videos (see Carpenter, II et al. column 6 liens 15-25 and column 9 lines 15-40) are known.
As per claim 4, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the playing a video includes enabling an ecommerce purchase of the product for sale. (see Figures 7a-7c, Examiner’s note: teaches checking out a burger).
Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. does not expressly teach that a video can be a short-from video.
However, Gibson et al. which is in the art of providing personalized content to the user (see abstract) teaches a video can be a short-from video (see paragraph 0003 and 0022, Examiner’s note: personalized content where one type of content is short term videos).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. in view of Gibson et al with the aforementioned teachings from Gibson et al. with the motivation of providing recommendations through known types of media content like short form videos (see Gibson et al. paragraphs 0003 and 0022), when providing things like reviews through videos (see Carpenter, II et al. column 6 liens 15-25 and column 9 lines 15-40) are known.
As per claim 5, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the ecommerce purchase includes a representation of the product for sale in an on-screen product card (see Figures 7b-7c, Examiner’s note: burger 1 dollar).
As per claim 6, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the enabling the ecommerce purchase includes a virtual purchase cart. (see Figures 7b-7c, Examiner’s note: burger 1 dollar).
As per claim 7, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the virtual purchase cart covers a portion of the video. (see Figures 7b-7c, Examiner’s note: burger 1 dollar).
Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. does not expressly teach that a video can be a short-from video.
However, Gibson et al. which is in the art of providing personalized content to the user (see abstract) teaches a video can be a short-from video (see paragraph 0003 and 0022, Examiner’s note: personalized content where one type of content is short term videos).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. in view of Gibson et al with the aforementioned teachings from Gibson et al. with the motivation of providing recommendations through known types of media content like short form videos (see Gibson et al. paragraphs 0003 and 0022), when providing things like reviews through videos (see Carpenter, II et al. column 6 liens 15-25 and column 9 lines 15-40) are known.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter, II et al. (United States Patent Number: US 10,628,635) further in view of Barkan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0182489) further in view of Varady et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0088811).
As per claim 9, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include a virtual Commerce transaction (see Figure 7a-7c and column 15 lines 55-65, Examiner’s note: ordering food at a kiosk through a conversational holographic assistant, this reads on “coordinating a delivery” of a burger).
Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. does not expressly teach a virtual try-on.
However, Varady et al. which is in the art of virtual try ons (see paragraph 0093) teaches a virtual try-on (see paragraph 0093, 0133, Figure 2C, Examiner’s note: virtual try on of eyewear).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Varady et al. with the motivation of using known computer technology to incentive a user to engage and make a purchase and reduce the risk of return(see Varady et al. paragraphs 0189), when providing information to advance a purchase is known (see Carpenter, II et al. column 1 lines 15).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter, II et al. (United States Patent Number: US 10,628,635) further in view of Barkan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0182489) further in view of Aggarwal et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0107930).
As per claim 11, Carpenter, II et al teaches
wherein the one or more skills include revealing one or more comparisons of the product for sale. (see column 16 lines 62-67, Examiner’s note: provide movie reviews and summaries of various movies).
While Carpenter, II et al. clearly teaches providing comparisons of products, Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. does not expressly each comparison prices.
Aggarwal et al. which is in the art of virtual assistant (see abstract) teaches comparison prices (see paragraph 0033, Examiner’s note: providing retail prices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Carpenter, II et al. in view of Barkan et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Aggarwal et al. with the motivation of providing other known types of information that a virtual assistant provides (see Aggarwal et al. paragraph 00333), when a virtual assistant providing various information like questions about products and product reviews are known (See Carpenter, II et al. column 6 lines 15-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dohrmann et al. (United States Patent Number: US 11,488,724) teaches a virtual assistant that provides interactions and related videos (see Figures 5 and 6B)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626