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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see RCE, filed 3-9-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Please see all rejection(s) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in line 19: ‘past history of the chat’. It is not clear what past history of the chat is referring to. It is understood the chat is between a user and a chatbot, however, it is not clear what the definition of ‘past history of the chat’ means and how it used for chatbot deflection. Paragraph: 0070 in the disclosure discloses some details of history of the user and chat but this is not reflected in the claim language in claim 1. Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and recites ‘past history of the chat’ as well. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-13 depend on claim 1.
Claim 14 discloses ‘determines, through only an artificial intelligence algorithm, that the input be forwarded to the agent to provide an answer’. It is not clear from this claim limitation how the automatic chatbot deflection module determines that the user input be forwarded to the agent to provide an answer. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 15-17 depend on claim 14.
Claim 15 recites in line 4: ‘past history of the user’ and ‘past history of the chat’. It is not clear what past history of the user and what past history of the chat is referring to. It is understood the chat is between a user and a chatbot, however, it is not clear what the definition of ‘past history of the user’ and ‘past history of the chat’ means and how it used for chatbot deflection. Paragraph: 0070 in the disclosure discloses some details of history of the user and chat but this is not reflected in the claim language in claim 15. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 18 recites in line 14: ‘displaying a chat history to the agent in the chat history field’. It is not clear what chat history of the chat is referring to. It is understood the chat is between a user and a chatbot, however, it is not clear what the definition of ‘chat history’ means and how it used for chatbot deflection. Paragraph: 0070 in the disclosure discloses some details of history of the user and chat but this is not reflected in the claim language in claim 18. Claim 19 depends on claim 19 and recites ‘chat history’ as well. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 19 and 20 depend on claim 18.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the determination analyzes" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if ‘the determination’ refers to ‘determine’ in line 5 of claim 1 or ‘determine’ in line 11 of claim 1. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the context of the input" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the step of training the chatbot" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10 a.m. - 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
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).
/LISA HASHEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692