DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/04/2026 as been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 04/01/2026.
Claims 1, 4-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 05/04/2026 in response to office action mailed 04/13/2026. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
In Remarks page 11, Argument 1
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible for the reasons in the previous response.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1
The rejections are maintained for the reasons provided in the last action and the reasons provided below.
In Remarks pages 11-12, Argument 2
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that recitation of a communication channel including text to voice converter and voice to text converter support that the claims are performed by conversational artificial intelligence system. Applicant argues that this improves the interface between the frustrated user and the conversational artificial intelligence system by enabling human engagement through the AI system when the user’s frustration level exceeds a given threshold.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2
Examiner disagrees. Voice to text and text to voice were well-known before the effective filing date of the invention and amounts to generic computer software added after the fact to abstract idea limitations. In fact, most modern computers include such software out-of-the-box. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
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, 4-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of:
compute, utilizing one or more machine learning models, a base frustration level metric for a given user initiating a conversation with the conversational artificial intelligence system based on an identity of the given user, wherein the base frustration level metric falls within a set of frustration level ranges based on two or more frustration level metric thresholds, wherein the base frustration level metric for the given user is generated based on user history data associated with the given user, a classification of a criticality type associated with the given user, and conversation feedback from the given user — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of known data (i.e. frustration ranges, user history data, criticality type, conversation feedback) to determine a frustration level.
compute, using the one or more machine learning models, a rate of increase parameter to increase a frustration level metric for the given user participating in the conversation with the conversational artificial intelligence system based on at least an intent derivation status for each query presented by the given user and an active conversation time between the given user and the conversational artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of known data (i.e. user’s intent, conversation time) to determine how much more frustrated someone will be.
compute the frustration level metric associated with the given user participating in the conversation with the conversational artificial intelligence system, starting from the base frustration level metric for the given user, based on the rate of increase parameter — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of known parameters (i.e. base frustration level metric, rate of increase parameter, user’s intent, conversation time) to predict how frustrated someone is. For example, the limitation could be performed by adding the base frustration level to the rate of increase parameter, which can be performed in the human mind.
continuously adjust the frustration level metric associated with the given user after each query and response throughout the conversation based on the computed rate of increase parameter as the conversation progresses — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing judgements of a situation based on known parameters (i.e. rate of increase parameter) over time. For example, the limitation could be performed by noticing that someone is raising their voice or using disrespectful words and judging that they are more frustrated as a result.
and cede control over the conversation and initiate human agent engagement in the conversation based on the frustration level range of the set of frustration level ranges the adjusted frustration level metric is in exceeding a given frustration level metric threshold of the two or more frustration level metric thresholds — This limitation is directed to a method of organizing human activity and managing personal behavior or relationships, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, in particular (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) II. C.). Initiating and managing a conversation based on given metrics amounts to managing social activities.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, operates as a conversational artificial intelligence system and: — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
the conversational artificial intelligence system, enabled by the at least one processing device executing the program code — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
send the frustration level metric to an agent manager of the conversational artificial intelligence system based on the adjusted frustration level metric associated with the given user exceeding a given one of the two or more frustration level metric thresholds — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
wherein the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter are computed utilizing a machine learning-based classification algorithm of the one or more machine learning models and the machine learning-based classification algorithm is updated based on feedback information associated with one or more of the given user and the conversation — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using an ordinary machine learning classification algorithm to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the machine learning classification algorithm is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
and the conversational artificial intelligence system, enabled by the at least one processing device executing the program code, establishes a communication channel including a text to voice converter and a voice to text converter to enable the human agent engagement through the conversational artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, the at least one processing device, when executing program code, operates as a conversational artificial intelligence system configured to: — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
the conversational artificial intelligence system, enabled by the at least one processing device executing the program code — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
send the frustration level metric to an agent manager of the conversational artificial intelligence system based on the adjusted frustration level metric associated with the given user exceeding a given one of the two or more frustration level metric thresholds — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter are computed utilizing a machine learning-based classification algorithm of the one or more machine learning models and the machine learning-based classification algorithm is updated based on feedback information associated with one or more of the given user and the conversation — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
and the conversational artificial intelligence system, enabled by the at least one processing device executing the program code, establishes a communication channel including a text to voice converter and a voice to text converter to enable the human agent engagement through the conversational artificial intelligence system — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to set the base frustration level metric at an initiation of the conversation, and wherein the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter are computed utilizing a machine learning-based classification algorithm of the one or more machine learning models — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using machine learning to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to set the base frustration level metric at an initiation of the conversation, and wherein the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter are computed utilizing a machine learning-based classification algorithm of the one or more machine learning models — Merely applying a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or use of a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)(2)) cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 4 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 4). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein computing the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter utilizing the machine learning-based classification algorithm further comprises classifying users into clusters based on one or more of user types, historical user data, and user feedback — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to forming an opinion on given user data to determine what the type of user is.
Step 2A Prong 2:
and setting the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter for each user type based on the clusters — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Setting parameters based on clusters to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
and setting the base frustration level metric and the rate of increase parameter for each user type based on the clusters — Merely applying a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or use of a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)(2)) cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim merely recites the additional abstract idea:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to adjust the rate of increase parameter as the conversation progresses based on one or more of a query type presented by the given user and a number of queries presented by the given user— This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement on how much more frustrated a person is getting based on the type and number of questions they ask.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein human agent engagement in the conversation based on the frustration level metric is further based on monitoring where the frustration level metric falls within the set of frustration level ranges — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an observation of the size of a numerical value.
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the conversational artificial intelligence system takes different actions based on within which one of the set of frustration level ranges that the frustration level metric falls — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using artificial intelligence to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the conversational artificial intelligence system takes different actions based on within which one of the set of frustration level ranges that the frustration level metric falls — Merely applying a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or use of a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)(2)) cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein when the frustration level metric falls within a first frustration level range of the set of frustration level ranges, the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to maintain control of the conversation with the given user — This limitation is directed to a method of organizing human activity and managing personal behavior or relationships, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, in particular (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) II. C.). Initiating and managing a conversation based on given metrics amounts to managing social activities.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 8 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 8). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
to enable at least one of the one or more human agents to accept monitoring of the conversation and, if so warranted, manually take over the conversation — This limitation is directed to a method of organizing human activity and managing personal behavior or relationships, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, in particular (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) II. C.). Initiating and managing a conversation with a human based on given metrics amounts to managing social activities.
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein when the frustration level metric falls within a second frustration level range of the set of frustration level ranges, wherein the second frustration level range represents a higher level of user frustration than the first frustration level range, the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using artificial intelligence to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
send the frustration level metric of the given user and additional data to one or more human agents — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein when the frustration level metric falls within a second frustration level range of the set of frustration level ranges, wherein the second frustration level range represents a higher level of user frustration than the first frustration level range, the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to — Merely applying a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or use of a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)(2)) cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
send the frustration level metric of the given user and additional data to one or more human agents — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of transmitting and receiving data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 9 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 9). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the additional data sent to the one or more human agents comprises a summary context of the conversation generated by the conversational artificial intelligence system comprising data indicative of one or more of: an identity of the given user; a type of the given user; an intent of the given user; a value associated with a subject of a query presented by the given user; at least one previous detail of the conversation; and a previous feedback score of the given user — This limitation is directed to the field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the additional data.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the additional data sent to the one or more human agents comprises a summary context of the conversation generated by the conversational artificial intelligence system comprising data indicative of one or more of: an identity of the given user; a type of the given user; an intent of the given user; a value associated with a subject of a query presented by the given user; at least one previous detail of the conversation; and a previous feedback score of the given user — Limiting a claim to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 9 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 9). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein when the frustration level metric falls within the second frustration level range, the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to establish a real-time communication channel with at least one of the one or more human agents — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using artificial intelligence and a real-time communication channel to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the neural network is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein when the frustration level metric falls within the second frustration level range, the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to establish a real-time communication channel with at least one of the one or more human agents — Merely applying a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or use of a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)(2)) cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 11 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 11). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
engages in a communication with the at least one human agent to enable the at least one human agent to provide assistance to the conversational artificial intelligence system when responding to the given query of the given user — This limitation is directed to a method of organizing human activity and managing personal behavior or relationships, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, in particular (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) II. C.). Initiating and managing a conversation based on given metrics amounts to managing social activities.
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein when the conversational artificial intelligence system is unable to derive an intent for a given query of the given user and the frustration level metric falls within the second frustration level range, the conversational artificial intelligence system — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using artificial intelligence to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the artificial intelligence is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
Wherein when the conversational artificial intelligence system is unable to derive an intent for a given query of the given user and the frustration level metric falls within the second frustration level range, the conversational artificial intelligence system — Merely applying a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or use of a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)(2)) cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 9 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 9). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein when the frustration level metric falls within a third frustration level range of the set of frustration level ranges, wherein the third frustration level range represents a higher level of user frustration than the second frustration level range the conversational artificial intelligence system is further configured to cede control over the conversation to the at least one human agent that previously accepted monitoring of the conversation to enable the at least one human agent to continue the conversation with the given user — This limitation is directed to a method of organizing human activity and managing personal behavior or relationships, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, in particular (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) II. C.). Initiating and managing a conversation based on given metrics amounts to managing social activities.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein human agent engagement in the conversation based on the frustration level metric is further based on generating an interface for presentation to one or more human agents to enable the one or more human agents to monitor the frustration level metric of the given user and engage in the conversation as warranted by the frustration level metric — This limitation is directed to mere data gathering and outputting which has been recognized by the courts (as per OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein managing human agent engagement in the conversation based on the frustration level metric further comprises generating an interface for presentation to one or more human agents to enable the one or more human agents to monitor the frustration level metric of the user and engage in the conversation as warranted by the frustration level metric — This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering of presenting offers and gathering statistics (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.), which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 15
Independent claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 1, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 15 recites a method instead of a computer apparatus.
Regarding Claim 17
Dependent claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 7, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 18
Dependent claim 18 is a computer apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 14, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 19
Independent claim 19 is a computer program product claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 1, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. The only difference is that claim 19 recites the following additional elements treated under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B:
Step 2A Prong 2:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device cause the at least one processing device to operate as a conversational artificial intelligence system configured to: — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device cause the at least one processing device to operate as a conversational artificial intelligence system configured to: — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 is a method claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 4, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 22
Dependent claim 22 is a method claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 5, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 23
Dependent claim 23 is a method claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 8, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 24
Dependent claim 24 is a method claim corresponding to computer apparatus claim 9, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm ET.
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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights