Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 9, 2025 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 07/09/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 17-21 have been amended. Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 22 and 23 have been added. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 7 is sufficient to overcome the claim objection in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 1, filed 07/09/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, “Without submitting to the propriety of the rejection, and to expedite prosecution, the claims are noted as above.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner directs Applicant to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection noted 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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving a set of messages in real-time, wherein the set of messages are received at [a computing system associated with a communication session between a member device and a representative device]…;
identifying one or more anchor terms in the set of messages, wherein the one or more anchor terms are identified by the computing system using natural language processing
identifying an issue, wherein the issue from the one or more anchor terms, is identified [by the computing system];
identifying a template by using a trained machine learning model and [the computing system], wherein the trained machine learning model uses the one or more anchor terms and the set of messages as input to identify the identified template from a set of templates, and wherein the template defines a task that is performable to address the issue;
The limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, receiving a message, identifying anchor terms, identifying an issue and identifying templates involves collecting and analyzing data, which can be performed in the human mind or with pen/paper (reflects Mental Processes). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mental Processes.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to NLP, Claim 3 is directed to generating proposal options, Claim 4 is directed to updating a console with fields, Claim 5 is directed to generating prompts, Claim 6 is directed facilitating communication sessions, and Claim 7 is directed to transmitting a notification in response to identifying issue. Claims 9-14 and 16-21 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-7 and encompass the same abstract idea.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a member/representative device and a computing system. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory, a member/representative device and a computing system. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a computer system and a member/representative device. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0182, general purpose processor).
For instance, the step of receiving a set of messages is generic sending/receiving functionality. The steps of identifying anchor terms, identifying an issue and identifying one or more templates for defining tasks using a trained ML algorithm involve data analysis and complex mathematics. The steps of presenting at task is basic display functionality and when the template is selected generating a task is data analysis. The step of improving the trained ML model using the task, the template and the set of messages is a retraining of the model to improve its accuracy, and does not involve changing the model itself (i.e. changing model parameters). Improving of the ML model is data gathering activity. The step of performing the task could reasonably be data gathering activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are 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 stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a crm, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-21 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sehrawat et al. (US 10083451) in view of Mandel et al. (US 20170223190).
Claim 1:
Sehrawat discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a set of communications in real-time, wherein the set of communications are received at a computing system associated with a communication session between a member device and a representative device and wherein the set of communications is received as the set of communications is being exchanged (see at least Figure 8A and column 25, lines 4-12, conversation between customer and CSR; see also Figure 8B and associated text)
identifying one or more anchor terms in the set of communications, wherein the one or more anchor terms are identified by the computing system using natural language processing(see at least column 25, lines 30-35, third party processes communications to determine intent; see also Figure 5 and column 19, lines 29-39, communications may be processed with a neural network to determine intent; see also column 15, lines 40-49, messages may be processed by semantic response to determine intent and this intent may be used to select a template )
identifying an issue, from the one or more anchor terms wherein the issue identified by computing the computing system; (see at least column 25, lines 30-35, third party processes messages to determine intent; see also Figure 5 and column 19, lines 29-39, messages may be processed with a neural network to determine intent; see also column 15, lines 40-49, messages may be processed by semantic response to determine intent and this intent may be used to select a template )
presenting via the computing system, the identified template, wherein when the identified template is selected to define the task, the task is generated; (see at least column 15, lines 40-65, based on determining intent a template may be selected and shown to CSR; see also column 16, lines 56-64; see also column 25, lines 29-39)
While Sehrawat discloses the above limitations, Sehrawat does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Mandel does disclose:
identifying one or more anchor terms in the set of messages, wherein the one or more anchor terms are identified by the computing system using natural language processing; (see at least ¶0044-¶0045, customer service inquiry was received to select a natural language processing lexicon to be used in identifying topic characteristics (anchor terms) of inquiry; see also ¶0054)
processing, in real-time, additional communications, as the additional communications are being exchanged between the member device and the representative device; (Mandel see at least ¶0087, training is ongoing where a trained machine learning system may be further refined as additional customer service inquiries are received and resulting responses are scored) (see at least ¶0086, training machine learning system to select specific response templates to select suggested content; see also ¶0087, a trained machine learning system may be further refined as additional customer service inquiries are received and resulting responses scored)
dynamically updating the training of the trained machine learning model in real-time, using the task, the template, the set of communications, and additional communications , thereby increasing a likelihood of the machine learning model of accurately identifying the templates. (see also ¶0087, a trained machine learning system may be further refined as additional customer service inquiries are received and resulting responses scored)
generating, using the machine learning model, an additional template based on additional anchor terms derived from the additional communications. (see at least ¶0087; see also Figure 3 and ¶0116-¶0119, a partial or full response (template) is provided)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customer service response system including determining intent of a conversation and selecting appropriate template of Sehrawat with the training machine learning system to select specific response templates of Mandel since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the selecting templates based on ML of the secondary reference for the third party template determination of the primary reference.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Further, the combination provides for managing customer service inquiries to address customer needs (see Spec ¶0005).
Claim 3:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
further comprising: generating one or more proposal options for completion of the task, wherein the one or more proposal options are generated based on the task, and wherein when a proposal option is selected, the task is performed according to the selected proposal option. (see at least column 25, 55-67, CSR selects a suggested response and suggested resources are presented as well)
Claim 4:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
wherein the task is performed according to one or more parameters associated with the task, the method further comprising: updating a console to present data fields for defining the one or more parameters associated with the task, wherein the console is updated when the template is selected to define the task, and wherein the data fields correspond to a task type associated with the task. (see at least column 26, lines 17-40, transmitting updated data; see also column 29, lines 13-15)
Claim 5:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
further comprising: dynamically generating one or more prompts for additional information, wherein when the one or more prompts are generated, the one or more prompts are provided to obtain the additional information; and ( see at least column 27, lines 22-31, CSR sends question to customer which require a response)
While Sehrawat discloses the above limitations, Sehrawat does not explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Mandel does disclose:
updating the template based on the additional information. (see at least ¶0135, response template may be edited to include additional customer data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customer service response system including determining intent of a conversation and selecting appropriate template of Sehrawat with the training machine learning system to select specific response templates of Mandel in order to manage customer service inquiries to address customer needs (see Spec ¶0005).
Claim 6:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
further comprising: facilitating a communications session corresponding to the task, wherein the communications session is facilitated between the member and the representative device; and (see at least column 25, lines 4-13, conversation; see also column 25, lines 32-36, select template using intent and present suggestions based on template)
automatically presenting information corresponding to the task through the communications session (see at least Figures 8A-8I and column 25, lines 55-60, sending response to customer to perform a task; see also column 26, lines 24-39)
Claim 7:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
further comprising: transmitting a notification in response to identifying the issue, wherein when the notification is received by the representative device, the issue and the template are dynamically presented on the representative device (see at least column 25, 29-39, transmits selected template to generate update data to CSR)
Claim 22:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
wherein presenting the identified template comprises presenting the identified template on a user interface and wherein the user interface is updated to display one or more task parameters of the task associated with the selected template. (see at least Figure 8D and associated text; see also column 25, lines the bottom of screen shows a suggested response to respond to customer inquiry)
Claim 23:
Sehrawat and Mandel disclose discloses claim 1. Sehrawat further disclose:
further comprising facilitating, by the computing system, performance of the task, wherein the task is performed according to one or more parameters associated with the task. (see at least column 25, lines 45-67 – column 26, lines 1-12, response template indicates setting up pin, instructions are provided to customer to setup pin)
Claims 8, 10-14 for a system (Sehrawat see Figure 9) and Claims 15, 17-21 for a non-transitory CRM (see column 32, lines 53-54) substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 1-7 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Ron et al. (US 2018/0322403) discloses during a communication session, the message recommendation system may continuously evaluate the messages received from the network device and/or the messages transmitted by the terminal device. The content of the message may be evaluated using machine-learning techniques to predict a response message for recommending to the terminal device operated by the agent.
Keller (US 2020/0382464) discloses proposed response language, the live agent may have the ultimate discretion of whether to include the proposed language in a response, to modify/supplement the proposed language in a response, or to ignore the proposed language altogether. The live agent’s ultimate response may then be used to train the machine learning models of the automated agent so that it may provide improved and/or more relevant suggestions in the future.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAE FEACHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5485. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached on 571-272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RENAE FEACHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625