DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 9/2/2025 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Track One status has been granted on 9/30/2025
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 6/2/2026.
a. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10 are amended
Overall, claims 1-12 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-6 are directed to a system and claims 7-12 are directed to a computer executable method.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claim 7) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 7) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on non-transitory machine-readable storage media that
[B] maintain a digital twin marketplace containing a plurality of digital twins decomposed into discrete licensable components;
wherein each of the plurality of digital twins is an AI agent trained to emulate knowledge, decision-making patterns, and behavioral characteristics of a respective human subject,
[C] receive component licensing requests from client organizations specifying desired capabilities;
[D] analyze available component inventory to identify components matching the licensing requests;
[E] validate component-level access rights and usage permissions for the identified components;
[F] calculate pricing and revenue distribution models based on component contributions and licensing parameters;
[G] generate hybrid twin profiles by assembling selected components from one or more digital twins;
[H] establish perpetual revenue tracking mechanisms for component contributors including expert estates;
[I] deploy the hybrid twin profiles as instances with component-level compliance monitoring; and
[J] continuously track component usage across deployed instances to execute revenue distributions.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 7) recites: receive components licensing request and analyze available inventory ([C], [D]); validate access rights and usage permission, as well as calculate pricing of and revenue distribution for the identified components ([E], [F]); generate components profiles and a perpetual revenue tracking mechanism ([G], [H]) and deploy the identified components and tracking components usage along with monitoring revenue distribution ([I], [J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of marketing, contracts, legal obligations, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 7) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “hardware memory,” “computer system,” and “storage media” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein each of the plurality of digital twins is an AI agent trained to emulate knowledge, decision-making patterns, and behavioral characteristics of a respective human subject,” as applied to the digital twins, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: maintain a digital twin marketplace containing a plurality of digital twins decomposed into discrete licensable components ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claim 7), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 7) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 7 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, which is representative of dependent claim 8, recites: wherein generating the hybrid twin profiles comprises:
performing personality compatibility analysis between components selected from different digital twins using pattern matching algorithms;
determining component weights and blending ratios for each selected component;
synthesizing a unified personality model by applying weighted blending algorithms to the selected components; and
integrating knowledge domains from multiple components using conflict resolution protocols that establish precedence rules.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim cover reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “performing personality compatibility analysis between components”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally analyzing the personality of individual components, without physical aid. Further, the step “determining component weights and blending ratios for each selected component”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally determining the composition of the blend, without physical aid. Further, the step “synthesizing a unified personality model”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally assessing the end result after the blend was established, without physical aid. Further, the step “integrating knowledge domains from multiple components”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally assembling the final product from the prepared components, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Therefore, dependent claim 2 (which is representative of dependent claim 8) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3, which is representative of dependent claim 9, recites: generating the hybrid twin profiles further comprises:
validating behavioral coherence of the hybrid twin profiles through consistency testing across multiple interaction scenarios; and
refining the blending ratios based on validation results to maintain professional capabilities.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea, Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 3 (which is representative of dependent claim 9) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 4, which is representative of dependent claim 10, recites: wherein the perpetual revenue tracking mechanisms comprises:
implementing component attribution chains that maintain detailed audit records of component contributions;
calculating revenue splits based on component usage metrics and predetermined contribution ratios; and
executing automated payments to expert accounts or estates according to the calculated revenue splits.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 4 (which is representative of dependent claim 10) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5, which is representative of dependent claim 11, recites: wherein maintaining the digital twin marketplace comprises:
categorizing the discrete licensable components by expertise domains, behavioral patterns, and communication characteristics;
generating searchable metadata for each component including source expert identification, capability descriptions, and compatibility parameters; and
updating component availability based on existing licensing agreements and exclusivity arrangements.
The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea, Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 5 (which is representative of dependent claim 11) is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, which is representative of dependent claim 12, recites: wherein the software instructions are further configured to:
create specialized agent profiles optimized for specific industry roles by selecting and combining components based on role requirements;
customize communication interfaces of the specialized agent profiles for target user populations; and
establish continuous learning pathways allowing the specialized agent profiles to evolve within defined operational boundaries.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Thus, the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed.
Therefore, dependent claim 6 (which is representative of dependent claim 12) is deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (Possession)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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 2-4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 8 are rejected for reciting the subject matter “… by applying transformation matrices to the selected components” and claims 4, 10 are rejected for reciting the subject matter “implementing cryptographic attribution chains that maintain immutable records of component contributions”, which is not adequately described in the specification, in the drawings or in the original set of claims to satisfy the requirements as described in MPEP 2163.05 V: “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved …” Further "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement. "Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement).”
In the instant situation, the application specification does not attempt to describe the subject matter “… by applying transformation matrices to the selected components” and “implementing cryptographic attribution chains that maintain immutable records of component contributions” No information, like calculation method or algorithm is provided; i.e. HOW the function is performed, i.e., which are the transformation matrices and how are they applied, as well as how cryptographic attribution chains are implemented. While the specification discloses the function, it discloses neither the necessary structure, nor the necessary algorithm to perform the function, i.e. HOW the calculation is performed.
The question is, given the disclosure, would a POSITA conclude that the inventor was in possession of the subject matter “… by applying transformation matrices to the selected components” and “implementing cryptographic attribution chains that maintain immutable records of component contributions” in order to cause a system to perform the functions? The answer is clearly “no.” It looks as if the invention recites subject matter that have neither structure nor algorithm.
Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For examination purpose, Examiner will interpret “… by applying transformation matrices to the selected components” and “implementing cryptographic attribution chains that maintain immutable records of component contributions” as any type of calculation, which is what the prior art of record discloses. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for compact prosecution purpose.
Examiner Remarks
No art rejection has been applied to the instant set of claims.
The identified prior art does not disclose following limitations of the independent claims:
analyze available component inventory to identify components matching the licensing requests;
validate component-level access rights and usage permissions for the identified components;
calculate pricing and revenue distribution models based on component contributions and licensing parameters;
generate hybrid twin profiles by assembling selected components from one or more digital twins;
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250301328 A1 2025-09-25 22 ABBASZADEH; Masoud et al. DISTRIBUTED ANOMALY DETECTION AND LOCALIZATION FOR CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS A system to protect an industrial asset includes a plurality of monitoring nodes each generating a data stream of current monitoring node values in time-domain, and a virtual agent associated with each of the plurality of monitoring nodes. the virtual agent being configured to detect anomalous performance of the corresponding monitoring node and configured to communicate with one or more other virtual agents via a network.
US 20210350294 A1 2021-11-11 24 Johnson; Christopher et al. OPERATIONS OPTIMIZATION ASSIGNMENT CONTROL SYSTEM WITH COUPLED SUBSYSTEM MODELS AND DIGITAL TWINS Optimization systems and methods for optimizing business operations and asset systems are disclosed. A system includes digital twins corresponding to asset systems; business models corresponding to business operations; and an electronic control unit (ECU). The ECU is programmed to: implement an asset optimizer module, where implementing the asset optimizer module interconnects the digital twins for optimization; execute the asset optimizer module, where the asset optimizer module optimizes the digital twins to obtain one or more optimization parameters for the asset systems; implement a system optimizer module, where the system optimizer module receives the one or more optimization parameters and the business models; execute the system optimizer module, where the system optimizer module generates operation protocols for the business models; and output, to a user, the operation protocols for implementation in a real-world asset system.
US 20230325553 A1 2023-10-12 11 Keferstein; Lutz GENERATING A DIGITAL TWIN, METHOD, SYSTEM, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT A computer-implemented method of generating a digital twin (DTW). To improve the efficiency of handling a digital twin (DTW) the method includes the steps of: providing a digital twin modular system (DTS), the digital-twin modular system (DTS) being characterized by digital-twin-modules (DTM) being adapted or being adaptable to digital-twin-features (DTF), the digital-twin-features (DTF) relating to at least one of calculation properties (CPR), scope of simulation (SCS), model architecture (MAT), communication safety (CMS), accessibility (ACB), data storage (DST), encryption functions (ECF), resource allocation (RAL), hardware requirements (HRQ), providing a tuning module (TMD), wherein the tuning module (TMD) includes a tuning module parameter-set (TMS), wherein the tuning module parameter-set (TMS) includes tuning module parameters (TMP) respectively corresponding to at least one digital twin feature (DTF), c.) generating a digital twin (DTW) by using the tuning module (TMD) performing the steps of selecting, configuring, and combining digital-twin-modules (DTM) of the digital twin modular system (DTS) according to the tuning module parameters (TMP).
US 20140358607 A1 2014-12-04 31 Gupta; Prachi et al. TEAM MEMBER RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM Techniques for discovering and recruiting team members for a team are described. According to various embodiments, a user request to identify one or more potential team members of a team is received, the user request including a user specification of a specific job title Skill mapping information identifying various sample skills associated with various sample job titles is accessed, and one or more specific skills associated with the specific job title is determined based on the skill mapping information. Thereafter, candidate team members of the team are identified from among members of a social network service having one or more of the specific skills.
US 20230328104 A1 2023-10-12 17 Ghosh; Partho DATA GOVERNANCE AND SECURITY FOR DIGITAL ASSESTS In an approach to improve data governance and security for digital assets, embodiments apply, based on blockchain based smart contracts, privacy and security policies for a participating heterogeneous digital twin enclosed within predetermined boundaries of a geofence boundary, and apply, based on a hierarchical designation of geofences, hierarchical privacy and security policies to geofences associated with the participating digital twin. Further, embodiments dynamically generate computational and deployment policies based on the applied hierarchical privacy and security policies of the geofenced digital twin, and create dynamic test automation workflows for enhanced security and privacy testing that enumerate security, privacy vulnerabilities or high-risk geospatial areas. Moreover, embodiments generate a knowledge corpus comprising information security and information privacy control attribute profiles for the geofence and components of the geofence, and implement enhanced policy models for predicting an event to be a policy breach based on the generated knowledge corpus.
US 20220350943 A1 2022-11-03 30 van den BERGHE; Sven METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING THE EVOLUTION OF SIMULATION RESULTS FOR AN INTERNET OF THINGS NETWORK A method of predicting evolution of simulation results for an Internet of Things (IoT) network comprising creating a source digital twin outputting a state of object(s). A main digital twin sequence is formed by creating clone digital twin(s), connecting an input of one clone digital twin with an output of the source digital twin where a time increment is added to the output of the source digital twin and connecting an input of any further clone digital twin with an output of a preceding clone digital twin where a further time increment is added to the output of the preceding clone digital twin. An evolved modified state of the object(s) is provided at additionally incremented time as an output of an exploratory digital twin which has an input connected with an output of one of the source digital twin, the one clone digital twin, and any further clone digital twin.
US 20240078218 A1 2024-03-07 17 BAEK; Myung-Sun et al. APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR VALIDATING VARIOUS KINDS OF DATA AND DIGITAL TWIN OPERATION The apparatus for validating various kinds of data and a digital twin operation includes a validation target data selector configured to select a target to be validated among various kinds of input data, a data validator configured to validate individual data for each type of data selected for validation, and a data linkage validator configured to validate various kinds of multiple data by linking the various kinds of multiple data in order to detect an error in a process of linking the various kinds of multiple data.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The Office action characterizes the claimed invention at a high level of abstraction-stripping away the specific technical operations that are central to what the claims require-and maps the resulting characterization onto the Commercial or Legal Interactions sub-grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. This characterization is flawed for at least two reasons.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, the examination guidelines (see MPEP 2106.04-07) require that the claims are analyzed in several steps, which makes sure that each and every claim element is analyzed, thus preempting the “abstraction” argument.
Second, an examiner can describe an abstract idea at different levels of generality without affecting the patent-eligibility analysis. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240--41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). That is the case here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited in claim 1, the result is the same – claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Cf Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Although not as broad as the district court's abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.").
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The present claims are not about contracts or legal obligations.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Based on the claim language (“validate component-level access rights and usage permissions for the identified components; calculate pricing and revenue distribution models based on component contributions and licensing parameters; generate hybrid twin profiles by assembling selected components from one or more digital twins; establish perpetual revenue tracking mechanisms for component contributors including expert estates”) and in light of the specification, the claims are directed to licensing digital twin aggregated systems and establishing a revenue monitoring and tracking mechanism. This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of marketing, contracts, legal obligations, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 7) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “They recite-as amended-a computer system configured to: maintain a marketplace of AI agents (each trained to emulate the expertise of a human subject) decomposed into discrete components; analyze component inventory; validate component-level access rights; generate hybrid AI agent profiles by assembling components from different digital twins; deploy those hybrid profiles with component-level compliance monitoring; and continuously track component usage across deployed instances. These are specific technical operations performed on AI models, not commercial activities.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
All the additional steps of the independent claims have been analyzed as well, as part of Step2A2 analysis (see the eligibility analysis in the instant office action.)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Second, the Action's characterization of the claims as representing a process "aimed at" licensing and revenue tracking selects secondary commercial features while ignoring the technical core of the invention.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
All the additional steps of the independent claims have been analyzed as well, as part of Step2A2 analysis (see the eligibility analysis in the instant office action.)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Focusing exclusively on the licensing and revenue aspects of the claims while ignoring the component-level AI architecture, hybrid profile generation, and compliance monitoring produces a characterization that is fundamentally inaccurate.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The examiner's Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis is flawed because it considers only the computing hardware recitations ("hardware memory," "computer system," "storage media") as "additional elements" and does not consider the claims as a whole.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Step 2A2 of the eligibility analysis in the instant office action concludes at Atep 2A2:
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claim 7), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Evaluation of claims as a whole means that the claims means that the examiner must consider all elements of the claims, including limitations that recite an abstract idea, additional elements, and any routine or conventional components in determining whether integration into a practical application exists”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “When the functional limitations are properly considered, the claims reflect a specific improvement to AI system technology.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Licensing AI agents is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Importantly, the examiner's own Examiner Remarks acknowledge that the prior art of record does not disclose four of the specific technical features of the independent claims: (1) analyzing available component inventory to identify components matching licensing requests; (2) validating component-level access rights and usage permissions; (3) calculating pricing and revenue distribution models based on component contributions; and (4) generating hybrid twin profiles by assembling components from one or more digital twins. These are precisely the features that distinguish the claimed system from a generic computer-based commercial arrangement. The fact that the examiner has identified these features as not present in the prior art confirms that they are specific and meaningful technical elements that integrate the claims into a concrete technical application-not merely a computer applied to an abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the necessity of the Office to provide art in a determination that the claimed elements are not a judicial exception in a 101 analysis, is unpersuasive. Applicant suggests that novelty and/or non-obviousness must be considered in determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, novelty and non-obviousness (i.e., a 102/103 prior art-type analysis) have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea, or involves conventional and routine elements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made this clear by rejecting an argument substantially similar to applicant’s in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("We do not agree … that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete."). The prior Office action (and herein in the 101 rejection analysis, above) made a determination, for the reasons given, that the instant claims are directed as part of the “inventive concept” features/elements, which do not bring about a technological improvement to the recited elements or require the use of a special purpose computing device. Additionally, whether claimed features/elements are routine and/or conventional is just one factor in the 101 analysis and is not determinative.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Step 2B: The claims include significantly more than any abstract idea”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action determines at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 7) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 7 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
Prosecution Insights