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 .
Status of Claim
Claims 1, 10, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that the technical improvements of the present application do not stem from the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer. Rather, they arise from the synergistic interaction among multiple specific models, which enhances the accuracy and the intelligence level of the customer service system described herein, which solves the identification and service allocation issues for unregistered customers, enhancing the system's the accuracy and the smart level, thereby constituting an improvement in the relevant technical field. In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that the present application is similar to Ex Parte Jere Armas, in the DECISION ON APPEAL, the DECISION contented that "Here, claim I recites two different, albeit known, models trained on the same data, but generating different outputs. The output generated by one model is compared to a threshold, and the output exceeding that threshold is used to modify the product path generated by the other model to refine a sequence according to that product path". The examiner respectfully disagrees. A human can quickly look at another person and disclose with a high degree of certainty that person’s gender and age, rendering the invention an abstract idea. The models disclosed at such high level are deemed mathematical concepts under BRI. Assuming arguendo, they are machine learning models, the claims still fail to disclose how the models use the overall image and partial image to determine a gender and age probability of a customer. The examiner notes that Ex Parte Jere Armas is a PTAB decision and not precedential. Regardless, the claims at issue in Application 16371107 (Ex Parte Jere Armas) were found to be eligible because they were not directed to the judicial exception. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since Application 16371107 includes two different, albeit known, models, then adding a limitation that recites three different, albeit known, models will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In Application 16371107, the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by having the output generated by one model compared to a threshold, and the output exceeding that threshold used to modify the product path generated by the other model to refine a sequence according to that product path. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Application 16371107 provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern because the claims do not recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant asserts that even though these models are individually well-known and conventional, the combination of the relative steps are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, e.g., the claim as a whole includes inventive concept and does amount to significantly more than the exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner points to Recentive Analytics V. Fox Sports for a similar rational and fact pattern:
“At Alice step two, we “consider the elements of [the] claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). Transforming the nature of a claim “into a patent-eligible application requires more than simply stating the abstract
idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1365 (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221); see also SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167. “[T]he claim must include ‘an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.’” Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1365 (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221); Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“[W]e must determine whether the claims include ‘an element or combination of elements’ that transforms the claims into something ‘significantly more’ than a claim on the patent-ineligible concept itself.” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18)). Recentive claims that the inventive concept in its patents is “using machine learning to dynamically generate optimized maps and schedules based on real-time data and update them based on changing conditions.” Appellant’s Br. 44. As the district court correctly recognized, see Recentive, 692 F. Supp. 3d at 456, this is no more than claiming the abstract idea itself. Such a position plainly fails to identify anything in the claims that would “‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible U.S. at 71). In short, we perceive nothing in the claims, whether considered individually or in their ordered combination, that would transform the Machine Learning Training and Network Map patents into something “significantly more” than the abstract idea of generating event schedules and network maps through the application of machine learning. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70; Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1372. Recentive has also failed to identify any allegation in its complaint that would suffice to plausibly allege an inventive concept to defeat Fox’s motion to dismiss. Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1365.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 16 recites “a customer service system, the customer service system including a customer service device and at least one image acquisition device, the customer service device being communicatively coupled to the at least one image acquisition device; the at least one image acquisition device being configured to obtain an image to be detected, the image to be detected including a target customer; the customer service device being configured to receive the image to be detected sent by the at least one image acquisition device, the customer service device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is coupled to the processor and is used to store a computer program or instructions, and the processor is used to run the computer program or instructions to implement a customer service method; wherein the customer service method comprises: inputting, by the customer service device, the image to be detected into a target detection model to obtain an overall image and a partial image of a target customer; inputting, by the customer service device, the overall image into a group attribute prediction model to determine probabilities of different group attributes of the target customer, the group attribute prediction model being configured to obtain probability factors of the different group attributes, a probability factor being used to characterize a degree of credibility that the target customer has the group attribute; and determining the group attribute of the target customer according to the probabilities of different group attributes of the target customer, the group attribute being used to characterize a type of a group to which the target customer belongs; inputting, by the customer service device, the partial image into an individual attribute prediction model to determine an individual attribute of the target customer; the individual attribute including gender, age, and customer level; wherein determining the individual attribute of the target customer includes: determining a gender probability corresponding to each gender of the target customer and an age probability corresponding to each age of the target customer; determining that the gender of the target customer is a gender with a highest gender probability; and determining that the age of the target customer is an age with a highest age probability; determining, by the customer service device, a service priority of the target customer and a worker type corresponding to the target customer according to the group attribute of the target customer and the individual attribute of the target customer; and assigning, by the customer service device, a worker to the target customer according to the service priority of the target customer and the worker type corresponding to the target customer”. Claims 1 and 18 disclose similar limitations as Claim 16 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 16, and 18 are directed to “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”, “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations” and “Mathematical Concepts” such as “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and 20-21 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, Claims 1, 16, and 18 recite additional elements such as those found in the preamble of Claim 16, yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 16, and 18 recite additional boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element directed to transmitting information reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 11, 13-14 and 20-21 recite additional elements, yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, dependent claims 2, 11, 13-14 and 20-21 recite additional elements “service terminal, a user database, image acquisition devices, a computer, ”. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1-2, 11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20-21 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. The claim recites the additional elements disclosed above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶89-96 “the image acquisition device 102 includes a webcam, a video camera, or a camera. The image acquisition device 102 may also be a device having a camera function. For example, the image acquisition device 102 may be a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a palmtop computer, a wearable device (such as a smart watch, a smart bracelet, a pedometer, or the like), a vehicle-mounted device, a flight device (such as a smart robot, a hot balloon, a drone, an airplane, or the like), or any other device that has the camera function. For example, the image acquisition device 102 in the embodiments of the present disclosure may also be an infrared imager or a night vision device, which is configured to acquire image data of a dark area. terminal (MT), and is a device that provides voice and/or data connectivity to the user. For example, the terminal includes a handheld device having a wireless connection function, or a vehicle-mounted device having the wireless connection function. Currently, the terminal device may be a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a palmtop computer, a mobile Internet device (MID), a wearable device (such as a smart watch, a smart bracelet, a pedometer, or the like), a vehicle- mounted device (such as an automobile, a bicycle, an electric vehicle, an airplane, a ship, a train, a high-speed train, or the like), a virtual reality (VR) device, an augmented reality (AR) device, a wireless terminal in industrial control, a smart household device (such as a refrigerator, a television, an air conditioner, an electric meter, or the like), a smart robot, a workshop device, a wireless terminal in a self-driving vehicle, a wireless terminal in a remote medical surgery, a wireless terminal in a smart grid, a wireless terminal in a transportation safety system, a wireless terminal in a smart city, a wireless terminal in a smart home, or a flight device (such as a smart robot, a hot balloon, a drone, an aircraft, or the like). In a possible application scenario of the present disclosure, the terminal device is a terminal device that often works on the ground, such as a vehicle-mounted device. In the embodiments of the present disclosure, for ease of description, a chip deployed in the above device, for example, a system-on-a-chip (SOC), a baseband chip, or any other chip having a communication function may also be referred to as a terminal device”.
As a result, claims 1-2, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-21 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 3-6, 8, 10, and 12 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 02/12/2026