DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #17/885,067, filed on 08/18/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are now pending and have been examined.
Claims 5 and 6 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Japanese Application 2018-200686 A, filed on 05/15/2018 (included as a PDF by applicant as a foreign reference with the filing of the application) in view of Bostock, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0295355 A1 and in further view of Baldwin, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0091406 A1 (and incorporated by reference Cristo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0033005 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Wook teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
in response to detecting a post from an applicant to a messenger app requesting an application, identify item information required for creating application information necessary to obtain approval (see Abstract, [0010]-[0013] in which a user on a messenger chatbot requests approval by providing approval application information)
create the application information by combining the item values obtained from the post with the other item values (see Abstract and [0051]-[0053])
Wook, however, does not appear to specify:
determine which of the required item information is missing from the post by comparing extracted item values from the post against a predetermined set of items required for the application information
for each missing item information, extract corresponding candidate item values from a history of conversation with the applicant using the messenger app by analysis on messages in the conversation history to identify words and phrases corresponding to the missing item information
Bostock teaches:
determine which of the required item information is missing from the post by comparing extracted item values from the post against a predetermined set of items required for the application information (see [0064]-[0067] in which items not obtained from the message requesting approval is inferred from the message history in order to compensate for the missing information)
for each missing item information, extract corresponding candidate item values from a history of conversation with the applicant using the messenger app by analysis on messages in the conversation history to identify words and phrases corresponding to the missing item information (see [0064]-[0067] in which items not obtained from the message requesting approval is inferred from the message history in order to compensate for the missing information; the examiner notes that Wook already teaches a messenger/chat app so this reference is being used for the other aspects of the claims)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Bostock with Wook because Wook already teaches a chat application in which a user requests approval for a request such as “traffic expense reimbursement” in such as a corporation, and uses historical data in the approval process, and using prior conversation data for missing information would allow for quick and routine approval requests by the requestor without having to submit all information again, especially when they are making frequent and repetitive similar requests, while allowing the system to use inference to reliably gather any additional needed information.
Wook and Bostock, however, does not appear to specify:
performing natural language processing analysis on messages
when multiple candidate item values for a same missing item are identified in the conversation history, the processor selects one of the candidate item values based on a predetermined selection criterion including at least one of: temporal recency of a message containing the candidate item value, hierarchical position of a message poster of the message containing the candidate item value, or linguistic indicators of certainty in the message containing the candidate item
Baldwin teaches:
performing natural language processing analysis on messages (see [0201]-[0212] of incorporated by reference Cristo 2007/0033005 A1 in which natural language analysis of user queries and messages are used to identify inferred words and phrases)
when multiple candidate item values for a same missing item are identified in the conversation history, the processor selects one of the candidate item values based on a predetermined selection criterion including at least one of: temporal recency of a message containing the candidate item value, hierarchical position of a message poster of the message containing the candidate item value, or linguistic indicators of certainty in the message containing the candidate item (see [0034]-[0036] in which context and information determination for the content topic of a particular message text is inferred using the context of the most recent prior messages)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Baldwin with Wook and Bostock because Wook already teaches a chat application in which a user requests approval for a request and uses historical data in the approval process, and Bostock uses prior conversation data for missing information, and using a predetermined selection criterion such as the most recent information as a basis for inference and selection of intention would make it more likely that the inference is correct as it would be based on the most current information from a source that is associated with the user themselves, namely their own recent prior messages.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin teaches:
the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1
Wook further teaches:
post the application information to the messenger app to present the application information to the applicant (see Abstract and [0052]-[0053])
Bostock further teaches:
including the item values extracted from the conversation history (see [0064]-[0067] in which items not obtained from the message requesting approval is inferred from the message history in order to compensate for the missing information)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin teaches:
the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1
Baldwin further teaches:
wherein the selection criterion includes the linguistic indicators of certainty in the message containing the candidate item value (see at least [0010] and [0032] in which degree of certainty is part of the selection process)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Baldwin with Wook and Bostock because Wook already teaches a chat application in which a user requests approval for a request and uses historical data in the approval process, and Bostock uses prior conversation data for missing information, and using indicators of certainty would allow for a higher chance of accurate selection)
**The examiner notes that the limitation “linguistic indicators of certainty” is broad and there is no specific limitation in the specification, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation was taken in examination.**
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Japanese Application 2018-200686 A, filed on 05/15/2018 (included as a PDF by applicant as a foreign reference with the filing of the application) in view of Bostock, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0295355 A1 and in further view of Baldwin, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0091406 A1 (and incorporated by reference Cristo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0033005 A1) and in further view of Lee, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0336983 A1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin teaches:
the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1
Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin, however, does not appear to specify:
in a case where the item information to be included in the application information is identification information of a processing system that performs processing in response to the application, if information that specifies the processing system is not obtained from the post to the messenger app used for conversation with the applicant, acquire system characteristic information in which identification information of systems that are candidates for the processing system is associated with a characteristic word indicating the system
if any characteristic word included in the system characteristic information is present in the history of conversation with the applicant using the messenger app, infer the system whose identification information is associated with the characteristic word as the processing system
Lee teaches:
in a case where the item information to be included in the application information is identification information of a processing system that performs processing in response to the application, if information that specifies the processing system is not obtained from the post to the messenger app used for conversation with the applicant, acquire system characteristic information in which identification information of systems that are candidates for the processing system is associated with a characteristic word indicating the system (see [0081]-[0083], [0087], and especially [0074]-[0077] in which a message from a user for approval to pay a vendor is then analyzed by such as considering history of invoice-related conversations by that the enterprise employees have had in prior requests in order to infer what type of request it is, such as an invoice payment request, and therefore what enterprise or system it is associated with)
if any characteristic word included in the system characteristic information is present in the history of conversation with the applicant using the messenger app, infer the system whose identification information is associated with the characteristic word as the processing system (see [0081]-[0083], [0087], and especially [0074]-[0077] in which a message from a user for approval to pay a vendor is then analyzed by such as considering history of invoice-related conversations by that the enterprise employees have had in prior requests in order to infer what type of request it is, such as an invoice payment request, and therefore what enterprise or system it is associated with)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Lee with Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin because Wook already teaches a chat application in which a user requests approval for a request such as “traffic expense reimbursement” in such as a corporation, and uses historical data in the approval process, and Lee uses prior conversation data for missing information, and using the teachings of Lee in combination would allow the system to identify what entity or system the request is associated with, making the processing of the message quicker and being able to associate the request with the right type for potential approval information, making for faster and more accurate automatic approvals.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Japanese Application 2018-200686 A, filed on 05/15/2018 (included as a PDF by applicant as a foreign reference with the filing of the application) in view of Bostock, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0295355 A1 and in further view of Baldwin, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0091406 A1 (and incorporated by reference Cristo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0033005 A1) and in further view of Lee, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0336983 A1 and in further view of Penney, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0039689 A1 .
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wook, Bostock, Baldwin, and Lee teaches:
the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2
Wook, Bostock, Baldwin, and Lee, however, does not appear to specify:
receive an amendment instruction for the application information by a post from the applicant to the messenger app
Penney teaches:
receive an amendment instruction for the application information by a post from the applicant to the messenger app (see [0037], [0155]-[0159], and [0223]-[0225] in which the user initially sends a message with an approval request for a transaction and then updates their message with an amendment to their original request)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Penney with Wook, Bostock, Baldwin and Lee because Wook already teaches a chat application in which a user requests approval for a request such as “traffic expense reimbursement” in such as a corporation, and uses historical data in the approval process, and Lee uses prior conversation data for missing information, and the user being able to amend a request would allow for the user to add additional information that could be valuable or important and allow new circumstances to change their request.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wook, Japanese Application 2018-200686 A, filed on 05/15/2018 (included as a PDF by applicant as a foreign reference with the filing of the application) in view of Bostock, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0295355 A1 and in further view of Baldwin, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0091406 A1 (and incorporated by reference Cristo, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0033005 A1) and in further view of Harsham, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0312395 A1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin teaches:
the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1
Wook, Bostock, and Baldwin, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the selection criterion includes the hierarchical position of the message poster of the message containing the candidate item value
Harsham teaches:
wherein the selection criterion includes the hierarchical position of the message poster of the message containing the candidate item value (see Abstract and [0052]-[0053])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Penney with Wook, Bostock, Baldwin and Lee because Wook already teaches a chat application in which a user requests approval for a request such as “traffic expense reimbursement
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn. Specifically, the claims now include multiple steps that use technology to analyze message text linguistically as well as analyze and extract items and then craft message completion. This would go well beyond a mental process or simply automating what could be done mentally. The examiner also does not see the equivalent of a mathematical formula or anything that would match up with the various “certain methods of organizing human activity” as listed in the MPEP.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626