DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant Arguments/Remarks dated 12/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks dated 12/15/2025 has been considered. In response to the newly amended limitations in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15, please see below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 8-14 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Claims 15-20 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Please see below.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claims recite a Judicial Exception.
Claim 1 recites “A method for analyzing feedback”. This is an intended use but also stating the high-level abstract idea, that is a mental evaluation or judgement of feedback from the users which is entirely mentally performable.
In relating to the steps of “creating a user profile corresponding to a user, wherein the user profile includes a weight to be applied to user feedback corresponding to a response of a virtual assistant to a user query”; “deploying the virtual assistant to cause the virtual assistant to provide the response to the user query”, the limitation “creating a user profile” can be done mentally, essentially just associating feedback with whomever provided the feedback. The claim recites that at a very high-level of generality, and even the specification in [0016] describes this broadly as just forming a “summary representation or analysis of the feedback the user has provided.” That can be done mentally. All the further analysis and weighting of the feedback can also be done mentally. This basically is just the mental process of saying person X’s feedback/opinion is more or less valuable. Humans mentally make that sort of judgement regularly.
The steps generally are directed to “analyzing feedback” and other than the fact the feedback relates to a “virtual assistant”, the claim is entirely mentally performable.
In addition, a “virtual assistant” functions as an abstract idea, a mental concept or a “brain” that learns patterns to assist with business tasks, in this case, providing response to the user query. It merely is applied in the context or field of use of “virtual assistants” under MPEP 2106.05(h) and using generic computer components to apply the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the creating step is a mental process of mathematical calculations and/or concept performed in the human mind with/without pen and paper including evaluation or judgement.
The step of
identifying a contradictory feedback pattern corresponding to the user based, at least in part, on identifying instances in which the user provides feedback different from average feedback amongst a plurality of additional users for the query;
adjusting the user profile according to the identified contradictory feedback pattern such that the user profile corresponding to the identified contradictory feedback pattern is assigned a lesser weight than other user profiles;
weighting the user feedback based, at least in part, on the user feedback to the response of the virtual assistant to the user query and the adjusted user profile are mental processes of evaluation or judgement and mathematical calculations. The average user feedback allows the identification of any user with out of the norm/outlying feedback/outlier that is a contradictory, bias feedback/opinion to an answer/response. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that "humans have always performed these functions"). In this case, the limitations including create user profiles by at least collecting user information and relating feedback, recognizing/identifying feedback, storing the evaluation/weight corresponding to the user profile in order to correct unfair/contradictory feedback to an answer/response by adjusting the weight of the user profile. As cited above, all the further analysis and weighting of the feedback can also be done mentally. This basically is just the mental process of saying person X’s feedback/opinion is more or less valuable. Humans mentally make that sort of judgement regularly. In addition, a “virtual assistant” functions as an abstract idea, a mental concept or a “brain” that learns patterns to assist with business tasks, in this case, providing response to the user query. See also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category").
The steps of “recommending additional training or education with respect to the user to whom the contradictory feedback pattern corresponds” and “adjusting, in real-time, the virtual agent based on adjusting the user profile to improve responses of the virtual agent to the user queries” are mental processes as evaluation or judgement. This concept is similar to evaluating a student/user’s answer in a pass/fail training. Failing in a training associates with getting a recommendation of retrain/additional training. The steps are at a high level of generality as simply “collecting data/receiving input, analyzing it/comparing it to a profile, and adjusting a response”. A “virtual assistant” functions as an abstract idea, a mental concept or a “brain” that learns patterns to assist with business tasks, in this case, providing response to the user query. See also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category"). Thus, the steps are mentally performable with/without pen and paper.
The claim also recites an abstract idea as a form of certain methods of organizing human activity, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as falling within the enumerated subgrouping of “Managing Personal Behavior.” Particularly, the claim is directed to managing the user’s behavior (i.e. feedback given) by recommending “additional training or education.” All of the limitations from creating the profile to analyzing the user feedback serve that purpose of managing behavior as to the training/education needed to modify the user behavior.
The independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations of commensurate scope and the limitations: “A computer implemented method with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer implemented method comprising:” “A computer program product with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions to:” and “A computer system for analyzing feedback with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising instructions to:” are merely ‘apply it’ in the context or field of use of “virtual assistants” under MPEP 2106.05(h) and using generic computer components to apply the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). For the reasons stated above, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite mental processes and mathematical calculations which are abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the additional elements are “A computer implemented method with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer implemented method comprising:” “A computer program product with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions to:” and “A computer system for analyzing feedback with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising instructions to”. There are no real additional elements in the claim, it merely is applied in the context or field of use of “virtual assistants” under MPEP 2106.05(h) and using generic computer components to apply the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B: “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, said claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that were not well understood, routine, and conventional. More particularly, the claims recite generic computer components (e.g., “A computer implemented method with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer implemented method comprising:” “A computer program product with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions to:” and “A computer system for analyzing feedback with respect to a virtual assistant, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions stored on the computer-readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors, the program instructions comprising instructions to:”, in claims 1, 8 and 15 performing generic computing functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional (e.g., plotting data, reorganizing data, forecasting data). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a “communications controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network--with no further specification--is not even arguably inventive.”).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Claims 2-7 recite "identifying one or more deficiencies indicated by the weighted user feedback"; “identifying a query ambiguity indicated by the weighted user feedback; and enabling automated ambiguous query identification by analyzing the query ambiguity to identify elements contributing to said query ambiguity”; “identifying content ambiguity indicated by the weighted user feedback; and recommending enhancing existing answer documents corresponding to the identified content ambiguity”; “identifying feedback profile concerns indicated by the weighted user feedback”; “identifying user skill concerns indicated by the weighted user feedback; and
recommending adjusting user profiles corresponding to the users for which user skill
concerns are identified”, “wherein contradictory feedback patterns are indicated by feedback from the user which is an outlier with respect to feedback from one or more other users”.
In the broadest reasonable interpretation, said limitations recite mental processes and mathematical calculations which are an abstract idea because identifying unfair and/or incompetent feedback/opinion or outlier, or unclear/ambiguous content in feedback that needs to be clarified have been long practiced in the technological art. Said steps/limitations can be set in the mind of the users and mathematical calculations with using pen and paper. Thus, the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind and fall within the "Mental Processes", “Mathematical concepts”, and a form of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as falling within the enumerated subgrouping of “Managing Personal Behavior” of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 recite limitations of commensurate scope to claims 2-7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koukoumidis et al. (US 11086858) teaches at col. 2:3-6: the assistant system may create and store a user profile comprising both personal and contextual information associated with the user; col. 22:30-39: the assistant system may speculatively execute queries when receiving a user input from a user. When an assistant system receives a user input, the assistant system may take some amount of time to comprehend the user input and process the user input. However, this latency may cause a negative experience for the user (e.g., the user may think their request was ignored). Therefore, in order to improve upon the response time, the assistant system may speculatively generate results to reduce the assistant system’s response time.
Reiner (US 20100145720) teaches at para. 49: providing an education and training feature in a medical application includes: activating an education option for a user; providing feedback to the user as to which data is supportive or which data is contradictory along with relative weighting of said data; and providing analyses to the user along with derived data and comparative data of peers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH BLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-4106. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/LINH BLACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2163 3/29/2026
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights