DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence filed by the applicant on 11/21/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Statements (IDS) filed on 11/21/2025 have been accepted and considered in this office action and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a collaborative experience weaving module in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objection(s)
Claim 6 recites, “A computer-implemented method … the method comprising the steps of: Maintaining an experiential geometric manifold … “ The word, “Maintaining” should be not be capitalized.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 6 recite “Maintaining an experiential geometric manifold that represents human experiences as geometric structures in a multi-dimensional space, wherein the experiential geometric manifold comprises experiential dimensions including emotional valence, sensory modalities, temporal evolution, and contextual embedding; receiving multimodal experiential data from a plurality of input modules; transforming the multimodal experiential data into geometric representations through processing operations including feature extraction and temporal alignment; integrating the geometric representations into the experiential geometric manifold; analyzing geometric relationships between experiences stored in the experiential geometric manifold; identifying meaningful connections between experiences based on at least one of geometric proximity, curvature similarity, and topological features within the experiential geometric manifold; processing collections of experiences from the experiential geometric manifold through geometric integration techniques; and generating wisdom artifacts representing insights derived from patterns identified across multiple experiential trajectories within the experiential geometric manifold.”
The limitations of the recited steps as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” and “a memory” in claim 1, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can ask another person about his/her experience about a certain event, gather all the information about the experience, write them down in a visual/graphic/geometric form, analyze the information, compare the information with other previous information, and generate insights based on the comparison and identified patterns. The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements – “a processor” and “a memory”. The additional elements in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of the recited steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a memory to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, claims 2 and 7 recites sharing experiential data; claim 3 recites implementing a privacy and security layer; claim 4 recites implementing a distributed storage layer; claims 5 and 10 recite generating resonance fields; claim 8 recites applying encryption; claim 9 recites storing experiential data; claim 11 recites extracting multi-modal data and synchronizing and normalizing the data; claim 12 recites identifying emergent patterns, preserving geometric relationships, and producing actionable insights. The limitations of the dependent claims as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Even though the disclosed invention is described in the specification as improving computer technology, the claim provides no meaningful limitations such that this improvement is realized. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality. As such, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if the 101 rejection is overcome.
Most pertinent prior art:
ZHAO (US 2025/0165067 A1) discloses a computing system for experiential intelligence comprising: a processor; a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing system to implement:
an experiential geometric manifold configured to represent human experiences as geometric structures in a multi-dimensional space (ZHAO Par 8 – “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the multimodal biological signal further includes one or a combination of physiological data, electroencephalographic data, brain imaging data, or behavioral data; and the plurality of dimensions at least includes one or a combination of a fatigue degree dimension, an emotional state dimension, or a cognitive load dimension.”), wherein the experiential geometric manifold comprises experiential dimensions including emotional valence, sensory modalities, temporal evolution (ZHAO Par 8 – “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the multimodal biological signal further includes one or a combination of physiological data, electroencephalographic data, brain imaging data, or behavioral data; and the plurality of dimensions at least includes one or a combination of a fatigue degree dimension, an emotional state dimension, or a cognitive load dimension.”; Par 9 – “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the preprocessing the multimodal biological signal to extract the fixation position and the index parameters of the plurality of dimensions at each time point includes: extracting, based on the eye movement data feature, a plurality of index parameters including fixation position, blink rate, and eyelid closure;”; Par 65 – “1) The emotional state (E) includes an emotional valence (V) and an emotional arousal level (M).”), and [contextual embedding];
an experience capture engine operatively coupled to the experiential geometric manifold and configured to:
receive multimodal experiential data from a plurality of input modules (ZHAO Fig. 2 – “Eye movement data; Physiological Data; electroencephalographic data”; Par 8 – “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the multimodal biological signal further includes one or a combination of physiological data, electroencephalographic data, brain imaging data, or behavioral data; and the plurality of dimensions at least includes one or a combination of a fatigue degree dimension, an emotional state dimension, or a cognitive load dimension.”);
transform the multimodal experiential data into geometric representations through processing operations (ZHAO Par 38 – “It can be understood that each dimension in the embodiments of the present disclosure may at least include the fatigue degree dimension, the emotional state dimension, or the cognitive load dimension to effectively improve the comprehensiveness of the index parameters of the plurality of dimensions, thereby improving reliability and effectiveness of subsequent acquisition of a user experience evaluation score.”) including feature extraction and temporal alignment (ZHAO Par 39 – “In the step S120 of the embodiment of the present disclosure, the operation of the preprocessing the multimodal biological signal to extract the fixation position and the index parameters of the plurality of dimensions at each time point includes: 1) extracting, based on the eye movement data feature, a plurality of index parameters including fixation position, blink rate, and eyelid closure; 2) extracting, based on a physiological data feature, a plurality of index parameters including a serum creatinine SCR amplitude and an LF/HF value of a frequency-domain index, in which LF represents a low-frequency radiofrequency, and HF represents a high-frequency radiofrequency; and 3) extracting, based on a brain imaging data feature, a plurality of index parameters including an alpha asymmetry index, an (α+θ)/β value of a frequency-domain index, and oxyhemoglobin parameter HbO2, in which α, β, and θ represent a signal quantity within a given frequency band of an α wave, a signal quantity within a given frequency band of a β wave, and a signal quantity within a given frequency band of a θ wave, respectively. The present disclosure is not limited thereto, and the above multidimensional parameter indexes are only examples. For example, they can further include extracting a time-domain index and a time-frequency index based on the electroencephalographic data. All the features that can be extracted from the multimodal biological signal and that can be easily thought of by those skilled in the art belong to the protection scope of the present disclosure.”);
output the geometric representations to the experiential geometric manifold for integration therein (ZHAO Pars 46-47 – “In step S140 of the embodiment of the present disclosure, an operation of obtaining, based on each standardized index parameter of each dimension and a predetermined weight for each index parameter, a user experience evaluation score of each dimension by means of a weighted average is represented as a formula of: …. where: wx represents a weight for an x-th index parameter; wx represents an x-th standardized index parameter of a corresponding dimension; and N represents a user experience evaluation score of the corresponding dimension.”; note that the authors made a typo: the second wx should be Vx.);
[an experiential resonance engine operatively coupled to the experiential geometric manifold and configured to:
analyze geometric relationships between experiences stored in the experiential geometric manifold;
identify meaningful connections between experiences based on at least one of geometric proximity, curvature similarity, and topological features within the experiential geometric manifold; and
a wisdom synthesis engine operatively coupled to the experiential geometric manifold and configured to:
process collections of experiences from the experiential geometric manifold through geometric integration techniques; and
generate wisdom artifacts representing insights derived from patterns identified across multiple experiential trajectories within the experiential geometric manifold].
However, ZHAO fails to teach all the recited limitations, more particularly the [square-bracketed] limitations as indicated above. In other words, ZHAO teaches receiving multimodal experiential data (e.g., Fig. 2 Eye movement data, physiological data, etc.) and transforming the data into multi-dimensional representative (e.g., Vx in [0046] that represents index parameter of a corresponding dimension.). The vector (m-dimensional vector Vx) of each dimension (e.g., fatigue, emotional, cognitive load, etc.) represents the geometric representations to the experiential geometric manifold. ZHAO further teaches using the representations for calculating an overall score for user’s experience. However, ZHAO does not teach comparing the representations to the ones stored in the experiential geometric manifold to identify meaningful connection and to generate wisdom artifacts as recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 AM thru 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew C Flanders can be reached at 571-272-7516. 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.
/JONATHAN C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655
Prosecution Insights