DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 10-27-2025.
Claim 11 remains canceled.
Claim 6 has been amended.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Examiner again refers Applicant to see 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability. The Examiner understands the Specification and Drawings allude to work previously published by Company “MindTouch” (e.g. Drawings; Figs. 11A and 11B). However, no IDS has been provided. No IDS has been provided which illuminates subject matter apparently material to patentability as disclosed previously by MindTouch – material which appear to be pertinent to the claimed invention. Therefore, Examiner refers Applicant to see 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability. Under 37 CFR § 1.56, amongst other pertinent rules, Applicant is reminded of the following: “(a) … Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section… no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct. The Office encourages applicants to carefully examine: (1) Prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and (2) The closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office. (b) Under this section, information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability…”
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
Examiner’s Note
Adhering to the guidelines of MPEP 2173.06(II), the Examiner acknowledges that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. However, when the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.
First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted.
Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
In the present set of claims (filed 12/22/2024), a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 12 exists (and therefore also dependent claim 8, which depends from claim 6). Therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not made regarding these claims (claims 6, 8, and 12), because, as shown in the 35 USC § 112 rejections, speculation and conjecture must be utilized by the Office and the artisan inasmuch as claims 6 and 12 do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is under the second paragraph of 35 USC § 112. Again, see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.)
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 6, 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 6 recites in part the following: “score= (a) relevance score*wieghtage1 + (b)… +(c)… , whereby, the relevance score is a sum of: (i) agent feedback score, (ii)…, (iii)…; and (iv)…; wherein the agent feedback score is calculated by formula II: (II) agent feedback score = number of votes / max_votes * agent feedback weightage, whereby: … the max_votes is a preconfigured number of top calculated score RTIS entries.” – underlines added for emphasis.
Respectfully, it is not clear what is meant by “a preconfigured number of top calculated score RTIS entries“. For example, does this mean a preconfigured number, e.g. 100, is initially chosen and then that value is used as the value for “max-votes”; i.e. = 100? Or, is the aforementioned variable intended to be a sum of the top 100 RTIS scores? If so, it appears the calculation of an RTIS score would contain a circular reference; i.e. it would be dependent on itself and any calculation of such a score will alter the value of the other scores which then will alter its own value; it is not clear that a convergence of stable scores would be reached under such an interpretation. Therefore, there is confusion as to the proper interpretation and computation of such a score, which renders the claim indefinite.
Additionally, as already noted per the previous office action, claim 6 also recites in part the following: “…dynamic context score = number of interactions per department / max interactions in a department in the batch * dynamic context weight..”; respectfully, it is not clear how “department” is related to an RTIS entry or batch of RTIS entries and it is therefore not clear how “number of interactions per department” is intended to be calculated. The claims do not set forth any particular “department” or number of departments or relationship between an RTIS entry and any particular department or sets thereof. This is feature is not understandable from the claims nor does the Specification fully illuminate how the calculation is to be performed given a batch of RTIS entries. The claim is considered indefinite.
Additionally, claim 6 recites in part the following: “…(IV) interaction keyword score= number of words in the stored RTIS entry which matches a subcategory of the interaction / total number of words in the subcategory of the interaction * interaction keyword weightage,…”; respectfully, neither the claims nor the specification appear to clearly set forth how to perform a “match” of words to a subcategory of interaction. For example, can a word such as “the” be a match to a subcategory of an interaction? No algorithm is provided for determining how to perform the match and therefore it is not clear what the scope of this feature encompasses nor is it clear how to infringe the claim feature. The claim is considered indefinite.
Additionally, claim 6 recites in part the following: “…the recency score is calculated by summing the recency entry score and a duration score whereby: the recency entry score is calculated by formula V: (V) recency entry score = preconfigured number of recent entries / (recency weightage* 100), etc…” Respectfully, it is not clear what set of values are contemplated as being within the range of the recited “weightages”; the scope is not clear. Furthermore, the term “recent” is a relative term and takes on different meanings to different people. Therefore, regardless of the “preconfigured number” it is still unclear what entries are to be considered “recent” so as to understand from which set of entries the preconfigured number applies, thus also rendering the claims indefinite.
Additionally, claim 12 recites in part the following: “…creating a how-to article from the determined preconfigured percentage of the RTIS entries, by invoking an Application Programming Interface (API)”; Respectfully, the original disclosure is silent regarding any particular method/algorithm by which to accomplish this step. It is wholly unclear how this step is intended to be accomplished. The specification does not provide the necessary detail for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what the scope of the “API” must encompasses such that they would know what to use, or how to use such API, to infringe the claim. The claim is simply not clear. For these reasons, the claim is considered indefinite.
Dependent claims 8 and 12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are also further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1 and 13, exemplified per limitations of method claim 13:
calculate a score for each RTIS entry in the batch, based on the one or more parameters of the RTIS entry and the one or more parameters of the second interaction, wherein the score indicates relevance, recency and line of business of information in the RTIS entry, and displaying a preconfigured number of RTIS entries based on the calculated score of the RTIS entries upon receiving a request for display
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); the calculation of a score may be considered Mathematical Concepts.
That is, the step as drafted, is a business decision to retrieve data regarding previous interactions between customers and customer service agents to find interactions which are similar which may be used as a helpful aid for the customer service agent; the interaction data is scored based on an undisclosed scoring function (which is a business decision to use some undisclosed calculation and not technical in nature) and which is intended to represent relevance, recency, and type of business of a prior customer interaction with a current customer interaction; thus the claims fall at least into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. There is no technical problem being solved here and not technical solution to a technical problem. This is purely a business decision. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components which are used to facilitate the business decision does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case customer service management) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations, exemplified per limitations of method claim 13, are as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
515
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “detecting termination” of a customer interaction (e.g. customer hanging up phone or navigating away from a merchant web-portal, etc…) nor is it a technique of “receiving” data such as customer responses to “mark an RTIS entry”, nor is it a technique for “displaying” data on a customer service representative’s GUI, device, or screen. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer hardware and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case customer service management business), or are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data-gathering, transmittal, display, and storage) as relates to the already identified abstract idea and these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more processors, etc…) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. customer service management), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering, collection, transmittal, and display). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “…wherein each RTIS entry includes information that has been provided to a customer during the first interaction, wherein the information is not included in a static knowledge base.” However, descriptions of data and where data has been stored is not applicant’s invention nor is it significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
As another example, dependent claims 3 recites: “…wherein the RTIS entries are displayed based on creation date, subject and line of business…” However, displaying select data is not applicant’s invention and is nothing more than insignificant pre-solution or insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are therefore patent ineligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adrian et al. (U.S. 2017/0178145 A1; hereinafter, "Adrian") in view of Billigmeier (U.S. 2021/0065203 A1; hereinafter, "Billigmeier").
Claims 1, 13 (previously presented)
Pertaining to claims 1 and 13 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 13, Adrian who is directed towards resolving customer service issues, as shown teaches the following:
A computerized-method for maintaining a dynamic knowledge base via a Real-Time Information Sharing (RTIS) platform, said computerized-method comprising:
(i) for each interaction between a customer and a user[,] detecting termination of a first interaction of a first user, wherein said interaction has one or more parameters (Adrian, see at least [0022]-[0024] e.g. “closed support tickets” and [0028] teaching: “resolved customer support tickets” which are detections of termination of interactions between a customer and a customer service agent [user]; note each interaction to close/resolve a support ticket has multiple attributes which are captured by the system; e.g. see at least [0021] e.g.: “…a multi-factor context [one or more parameters] can be dynamically updated throughout the process of resolving the associated IT customer service issue. As the multi-factor context is updated (e.g., modified, etc.), the relevant resources identified can change as well by conducting additional (iterative) searches of the set of available resources….”; See also at least [0052]);
(ii) displaying via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is presented on a display unit, an option to mark information as to a resolution to a problem that has been provided during the first interaction for entering the resolution to a RTIS entry (Adrian, see at least citations noted supra, including e.g. Fig. 3 “Create Ticket” is an option displayed in customer service agent’s user interface and this option allows the customer service agent to provide information regarding resolution to a problem; e.g. see at least [0022]-[00223]: “…By way of example, a multi-factor context associated with a given IT customer service issue can include information from a number of different sources, such as a description of the issue in a customer service ticket, a status of the ticket (e.g., new, in-process, partially resolved, etc.) [information as to a resolution to a problem that has been provided]… the description that the agent enters for the issue, and so forth, may be included in the multifactor context that is used to identify relevant resources when searching across a wide variety of content and return a set of resources that are relevant to resolving the given customer service issue being addressed.”);
(iii) receiving a marked RTIS entry via the GUI from the first user and storing the marked RTIS entry in the RTI database with the one or more parameters and, wherein the display unit is associated to a computerized-device in the plurality of computerized-devices ([0033], e.g.: “…the context generation engine 120 can be configured to receive the input associated with the IT customer service issue from the user interface…” and as shown per citations noted supra, e.g. per at least [0022]-[00223]: “…By way of example, a multi-factor context associated with a given IT customer service issue can include information [one or more parameters] from a number of different sources, such as a description of the issue in a customer service ticket, a status of the ticket (e.g., new, in-process, partially resolved, etc.)…”);
(iv) for each interaction between a customer and a user detecting when a second interaction of a second user starts, wherein said second interaction has one or more associated parameters (Adrian, see at least Fig. 3 “Create New”; i.e. create new defines a new start to an interaction from the perspective of the system and [0009]-[0013]; see also citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0021]: “…a multi-factor context [one or more parameters] can be dynamically updated throughout the process of resolving the associated IT customer service issue [e.g. the second interaction]. As the multi-factor context is updated (e.g., modified, etc.), the relevant resources identified can change as well by conducting additional (iterative) searches of the set of available resources….”):
(a) retrieving a batch of RTIS entries from the RTI database (Adrian, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 5 #530, and respective disclosure, and at least [0009]-[0014] and [0041] regarding retrieval of a “subset of plurality of resources” [batch of RTIS entries from the RTI database];)
(b) calculate a score for each RTIS entry in the batch, based on the one or more parameters of the RTIS entry and the one or more associated parameters of the second interaction, (Adrian, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0041]: “…The relevance-based search engine 140 can also be configured to assign, based on the multi-factor context, a respective relevancy score to each of the plurality of resources that are searched in the search content 150 and provide the results 160 (which can be a ranked list of a subset of the plurality of resources that is determined to be relevant to the particular IT customer service issue associated with the multi-factor context) to the UI 110 for display and/or selection…”)
Wherein the score indicates relevance, […] in the RTIS entry (Adrian, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0041]: “…The relevance-based search engine 140 can also be configured to assign, based on the multi-factor context, a respective relevancy score to each of the plurality of resources that are searched in the search content 150 and provide the results 160 (which can be a ranked list of a subset of the plurality of resources that is determined to be relevant to the particular IT customer service issue associated with the multi-factor context) to the UI 110 for display and/or selection…”)
[…]; and
(c) displaying a preconfigured number of RTIS entries via the GUI based on the calculated score of the RTIS entries upon receiving a request for display. (Adrian, see again citations noted supra, e.g. at least Figs. 3-5, [0041], [0056]-[0057], and [0073] : “…the method 500 includes displaying, in a UI, such as the Uls 200, 300 and 400, a ranked list of a subset of the plurality of resources (e.g., the results 160) [RTIS entries]. As described herein, the results 160 can being ordered based on the respective relevancy scores [calculated score] of the subset of the resources [RTIS entries]. Further, the number of resources of a particular type included in the results 160 can be limited to a given number [preconfigured number] of resources [RTIS entries].”
PNG
media_image2.png
706
1014
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
Although Adrian teaches the above limitations, and he teaches his score indicates relevance, he may not explicitly teach that his score also indicates recency and line of business of information. However, regarding this nuance, Adrian in view of Billigmeier teaches the following:
wherein the score indicates relevance, recency and line of business1 of information in the RTIS entry (Billigmeier, see at least Figs. 7, 9, 10 and associated disclosure e.g. [0021], [0055] and [0076]-[0078] regarding a customer similarity model which calculates a “similarity rating” also called a “similarity score” [RTIS scoring] between customer interaction information [RTIS entries] for the purpose of determining supplemental data for a customer service representative to use when interacting with a particular customer. Billigmeier’s customer “similarity score” [RTIS score] indicates relevance, recency, and type of business of a prior customer interaction as compared to a current customer interaction. For example, the Similarity [relevancy] Score of 86% indicates the relevancy of a particular customer interaction with John Smith relative to the current customer interaction with Betty Jones, and is an indication of the recency of interactions with John Smith which make John’s interaction relevant to Betty’s, e.g. visits per past 3x months [recency], and is an indication of the related line of business of each of the customers’ respective interactions; e.g. in Billigmeier’s example of Fig. 7 the service of Doctor House Call [line of business] and Medication Prescription being relevant to both customers)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Billigmeier (directed towards a particular technique of scoring customer interaction information (RTIS entries]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Adrian (already directed towards scoring relevancy of other customer interactions with a customer service agent) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Billigmeier to the device/method of Adrian in order to realize Adrian’s score may also be performed such that it is an indication of recency and line of business2 of information in addition to relevancy of his resources which are resources “helpful for resolving a specific IT customer service issue” obtained from knowledge articles written by customer service agents regarding past encounters with customers with similar issues and because Adrian and Billigmeier are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 2 (Original)
Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Adrian teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 1, wherein each RTIS entry includes information that has been provided to a customer during the first interaction, wherein the information is not included in a static knowledge base (Adrian, see citations noted supra, including again [0034]: “…Context information included a given multi-factor context can be obtained from different sources. For instance,
such context information can be obtained from information input by an IT customer service professional. Context information can also be obtained from information included in the system 100, or included in other systems or devices that are operationally coupled with the system 100 (e.g., such as a customer information database 151 included in the search content 150 in the system 100)…”)
Claim 3 (previously presented)
Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Adrian teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 1, wherein the RTIS entries are displayed based on creation date, subject and line of business. (Adrian, see citations noted supra, including again Fig. 4: the recommended knowledge resources, lower right corner of the user interface, are displayed and include dates when each were updated [creation date for that particular resource], an identifier: KBA00005 [subject], and name “automation companies” [line of business])
Claim 4 (Original)
Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Adrian teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 3, wherein the RTIS entries are displayed from recent date to old date, and wherein the subject and the line of business are selected by the second
user. (Adrian, see citations noted supra, including again Fig. 4: the recommended knowledge resources, lower right corner of the user interface, are displayed and include dates when each were updated [creation date for that particular resource] and these dates are displayed from most recent to older updates in a descending order; applicant’s description of an action taken by a user is interpreted as non-functional descriptive material.)
Claim 5 (Original)
Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Adrian teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 1, wherein the displayed RTIS entries are RTIS entries having highest scores (Adrian, see at least Fig. 5 #540 and [0004] regarding “displayed ranked list of relevant resources” where “the ranked list being ordered based on the respective relevancy scores of the subset of the resources….”, etc…)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adrian in view of Billigmeier further in view of in view of Ayers et al. (U.S. 2022/0027020 A1; hereinafter, "Ayers ").
Claim 7 (previously presented)
Although Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including providing a ranked list of recommended results/resources [RTIS entries] according to a relevancy score, they may not explicitly teach their customer service agent is enable to “pin” a resource to their UI regardless of the score of such resource [RTIS entry]. However, regarding this feature Adrian/Billigmeier in view of Ayers teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 1, wherein said one more processors are further configured to display via the GUI, that is presented on a display unit, an option to pin RTIS entries to be included in the preconfigured number of RTIS entries regardless of the score of the RTIS entry (Ayers, see at least [0076], teaching, e.g.: “…The user can pin the recommendation [RTIS entry], so that it remains on the toolbar and the like.”) Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Ayers which is applicable to a known base device/method of Adrian/Billigmeier to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Ayers to the device/method of Adrian/Billigmeier in order to realize limitation as claimed because Adrian/Billigmeier and Ayers are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Adrian in view of Billigmeier further in view of in view of Klein et al. (U.S. 2018/0007102 A1; hereinafter, "Klein ").
Claim 9 (Original)
Although Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including providing an option to “create ticket” [option to mark information provided during the interaction for conversion to a RTIS entry], e.g. per Adrian Fig. 3, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature Adrian/Billigmeier in view of Klein teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 1, wherein the option to mark information provided during the interaction for conversion to a RTIS entry is displayed based on duration of the interaction and context thereof. (Klein, see citations noted supra, including Fig. 2 #10 “After action: Agent stores session metadata in knowledge base”, etc… in view of at least [0060]-[0061], teaching, e.g.: “…. the virtual agent 212 can assess communication exchanges by any of the one or more various contact modes to determine whether the customer is dissatisfied [a context], whether the agent is not making sufficient or timely progress [based on duration],…” and per [0083]: “…one or more customer care resources can be brought into the session at different times [based on duration of interaction], as necessary…” Therefore, the Examiner understands that Klein provides motivation to solicit and input feedback, from a customer service agent, into a Knowledge Base according to duration of time of interaction; e.g. after agent is not making sufficient or timely progress [based on duration] as this is a basis to introduce noted “customer care resources” which may be deemed “as necessary” at different time [again based on duration]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Adrian/Billigmeier customer service agent user interface such that the option “to create a ticket”, per Adrian Fig. 3 [i.e. to mark information provided during the interaction for conversion to a RTIS entry] is displayed based on duration of the interaction and context thereof because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 10 (previously presented)
Although Adrian/Billigmeier teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including providing an option to “create ticket” [option to mark information provided during the interaction for conversion to a RTIS entry], e.g. per Adrian Fig. 3, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance. However, regarding this feature Adrian/Billigmeier in view of Klein teaches the following: The RTIS platform of claim 1, wherein one or more process are further configured to receive a supervisor approval before the receiving of the RTIS entry via the GUI from the first user. (Klein, see citation noted supra, in view of at least [0105] teaching: “…Escalation can include joining a supervisor, a manager and/or another subject matter expert to the existing session. To the extent escalations occur, the process can repeat, e.g., from step 620….”; customer feedback may be solicited only after Supervisor joins a session, where joining a session is a form of approval.) Therefore, the Examiner understands that Klein provides motivation to seek supervisor approval before storage of information regarding a customer interaction with a customer service agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Adrian/Billigmeier customer service agent user interface such that Adrian’s customer service agent is required to seek supervisor approval before allowing the customer service agent to store information in the system which may be used as a future resource [before the system receives the RTIS entry via the GUI from the user] for other customer service agents, e.g. including before creating resources, e.g. as noted per Adrian at [0024] (“knowledge articles, other incidents (e.g., open and/or closed support tickets), change requests for relevant computing resources, tasks in process by other customer service agents, work orders, etc. etc…) because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claim 6 on 10/27/2025; claim 11 remains canceled. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 10/27/2025, have been fully considered but are not convincing as noted below. Note the updated 112(b) rejection of claims 6, 8, 12 in view of applicant’s amendments. Also, note the following:
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pg. 8 of 14) do not actually address any of the grounds of rejection but instead asserts the amendments overcome the rejections.
Respectfully, Examiner disagrees for multiple reasons. First, as previously noted by the Office in Non-Final Rejection, multiple issues exist with different features of claim 6, each such feature is problematic and renders the claim indefinite. Applicant’s current amendments are made only to one such problem feature of claim 6 which cannot overcome the rejection in view of the issues raised regarding the other non-amended problematic features. Furthermore, the amendment itself introduces ambiguity into the claim scope and additionally renders the claim indefinite as noted supra. Claims 8 and 12 have their own issues which are not addressed by the amendment to claim 6. Furthermore, claims 8 and 12 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 6 from which they depend.
For example, as noted supra, and hereinbelow for ease of reference, claims 6, 8, 12 are indefinite for at least the following reasons: dependent claim 6 recites in part the following: “score= (a) relevance score*wieghtage1 + (b)… +(c)… , whereby, the relevance score is a sum of: (i) agent feedback score, (ii)…, (iii)…; and (iv)…; wherein the agent feedback score is calculated by formula II: (II) agent feedback score = number of votes / max_votes * agent feedback weightage, whereby: … the max_votes is a preconfigured number of top calculated score RTIS entries.” – underlines added for emphasis.
Respectfully, it is not clear what is meant by “a preconfigured number of top calculated score RTIS entries”. For example, does this mean a preconfigured number, e.g. 100, is initially chosen and then that value is used as the value for “max-votes”; i.e. = 100? Or, is the aforementioned variable (preconfigured number of top calculated score RTIS entries) intended to be a sum of the top (e.g. 100) RTIS scores? If so, it appears the calculation of an RTIS score would contain a circular reference; i.e. it would be dependent on itself and any calculation of such a score will alter the value of the other scores which then will alter its own value; it is not clear that a convergence of stable scores would be reached under such an interpretation. Therefore, there is confusion as to the proper interpretation and computation of such a score, which renders the claim indefinite.
Additionally, as already noted per the previous office action, claim 6 also recites in part the following: “…dynamic context score = number of interactions per department / max interactions in a department in the batch * dynamic context weight..”; respectfully, it is not clear how “department” is related to an RTIS entry or batch of RTIS entries and it is therefore not clear how “number of interactions per department” is intended to be calculated. The claims do not set forth any particular “department” or number of departments or relationship between an RTIS entry and any particular department or sets thereof. This is feature is not understandable from the claims nor does the Specification fully illuminate how the calculation is to be performed given a batch of RTIS entries. The claim is considered indefinite.
Additionally, claim 6 recites in part the following: “…(IV) interaction keyword score= number of words in the stored RTIS entry which matches a subcategory of the interaction / total number of words in the subcategory of the interaction * interaction keyword weightage,…”; respectfully, neither the claims nor the specification appear to clearly set forth how to perform a “match” of words to a subcategory of interaction. For example, can a word such as “the” be a match to a subcategory of an interaction? No algorithm is provided for determining how to perform the match and therefore it is not clear what the scope of this feature encompasses nor is it clear how to infringe the claim feature. The claim is considered indefinite.
Additionally, claim 6 recites in part the following: “…the recency score is calculated by summing the recency entry score and a duration score whereby: the recency entry score is calculated by formula V: (V) recency entry score = preconfigured number of recent entries / (recency weightage* 100), etc…” Respectfully, it is not clear what set of values are contemplated as being within the range of the recited “weightages”; the scope is not clear. Furthermore, the term “recent” is a relative term and takes on different meanings to different people. Therefore, regardless of the “preconfigured number” it is still unclear what entries are to be considered “recent” so as to understand from which set of entries the preconfigured number applies, thus also rendering the claims indefinite.
Additionally, claim 12 recites in part the following: “…creating a how-to article from the determined preconfigured percentage of the RTIS entries, by invoking an Application Programming Interface (API)”; Respectfully, the original disclosure is silent regarding any particular method/algorithm by which to accomplish this step. It is wholly unclear how this step is intended to be accomplished. The specification does not provide the necessary detail for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what the scope of the “API” must encompasses such that they would know what to use, or how to use such API, to infringe the claim. The claim is simply not clear. For these reasons, the claim is considered indefinite.
Dependent claims 8 and 12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are also further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
For the reasons noted supra, the Applicant’s assertion is not convincing and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pg. 8-10 of 14) do not actually address any of the grounds of rejection raised by the Office but instead makes assertions that the claims are similar to other claims which the Courts have found as non-abstract. However, the Examiner does not find these assertions persuasive.
For example, Applicant asserts (Remarks, pg. 9) the following: “The claimed invention maintains a dynamic knowledge base that continuously evolves based on real-time inputs and contextual feedback… This constitutes a technological improvement in the field of intelligent information systems, as recognized in McRO v. Bandai and USPTO Example 42.” Respectfully, Examiner disagrees. The claims are not at all comparable to the fact pattern McRO v. Bandai nor to those of Example 42. For example, in McRo v Bandai, the Federal Circuit held “that the ordered combination of claimed steps, using unconventional rules that relate sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an abstract idea and is therefore patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.”
However, in the instant case, applicant’s additional elements (those not considered part of the abstract idea) do not form an unconventional ordered combination of claimed steps. Applicant’s additional elements also do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “detecting termination” of a customer interaction (e.g. customer hanging up phone or navigating away from a merchant web-portal, etc…) nor is it a technique of “receiving” data such as customer responses to “mark an RTIS entry”, nor is it a technique for “displaying” data on a customer service representative’s GUI, device, or screen. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer hardware and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case customer service management business), or are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data-gathering, transmittal, display, and storage) as relates to the already identified abstract idea and these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Furthermore, Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more processors, etc…) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. customer service management), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering, collection, transmittal, and display). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Applicant’s other assertion is equally unconvincing; e.g. Remarks (pgs. 9-10 of 14), asserting: “…The current application enables a new capability, i.e., a Real-Time Information Sharing (RTIS) platform for maintaining a dynamic knowledge base, which courts have recognized as a hallmark of patent eligibility…” Respectfully, the Examiner does not find the Courts to have made any such finding and Applicant does not offer any evidence of his assertion. Instead, as shown in the rejection provided supra, Applicant’s claims fall squarely within the realm of abstract ideas without significantly more to the claims which might integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s assertions are not convincing and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pg. 10-13 of 14) do not actually address any of the grounds of rejection raised by the Office but instead makes assertions that the claims are patentable; i.e. Applicant’s only argument is found on pg. 12 of 14 of his Remarks and states the following: “… as previously argued, there is no motivation to combine the assessment of the already existing static resolution used by the virtual agent or transitioned to a live agent of Adrian with the ordered listing of talking points for a customer-service interaction of Billigmeier to result with the dynamic knowledge base that enables adding a new entry to the knowledge base in real-time when a first interaction terminates, where the added entry is later on available to other agents when their interaction starts based on relevance score, of the current application. Neither Adrian nor Billigmeier alone or combined, teaches or suggests a Real-Time Information Sharing (RTIS) platform for maintaining a dynamic knowledge base, as the current application does.”
However, Applicant’s assertion that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of the references is clearly false as the Office has shown that the known technique of Billigmeier (directed towards a particular technique of scoring customer interaction information (RTIS entries]) is applicable to a known base device/method of Adrian (already directed towards scoring relevancy of other customer interactions with a customer service agent) and would yield predictable results, as shown in the rejection provided supra and as given hereinbelow for ease of reference.
The Office has found that although Adrian teaches the above limitations upon which the below feature depends, and he teaches his score indicates relevance, he may not explicitly teach that his score also indicates recency and line of business of information. However, regarding this nuance, Adrian in view of Billigmeier teaches the following:
wherein the score indicates relevance, recency and line of business3 of information in the RTIS entry (Billigmeier, see at least Figs. 7, 9, 10 and associated disclosure e.g. [0021], [0055] and [0076]-[0078] regarding a customer similarity model which calculates a “similarity rating” also called a “similarity score” [RTIS scoring] between customer interaction information [RTIS entries] for the purpose of determining supplemental data for a customer service representative to use when interacting with a particular customer. Billigmeier’s customer “similarity score” [RTIS score] indicates relevance, recency, and type of business of a prior customer interaction as compared to a current customer interaction. For example, the Similarity [relevancy] Score of 86% indicates the relevancy of a particular customer interaction with John Smith relative to the current customer interaction with Betty Jones, and is an indication of the recency of interactions with John Smith which make John’s interaction relevant to Betty’s, e.g. visits per past 3x months [recency], and is an indication of the related line of business of each of the customers’ respective interactions; e.g. in Billigmeier’s example of Fig. 7 the service of Doctor House Call [line of business] and Medication Prescription being relevant to both customers)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Billigmeier (directed towards a particular technique of scoring customer interaction information (RTIS entries]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Adrian (already directed towards scoring relevancy of other customer interactions with a customer service agent) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Billigmeier to the device/method of Adrian in order to realize Adrian’s score may also be performed such that it is an indication of recency and line of business4 of information in addition to relevancy of his resources which are resources “helpful for resolving a specific IT customer service issue” obtained from knowledge articles written by customer service agents regarding past encounters with customers with similar issues and because Adrian and Billigmeier are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Therefore, the Applicant’s assertions are not convincing and the rejections are maintained. Regarding the dependent claims, Applicant merely asserts the claims are allowable by virtue of depending from supposedly allowable claims. However, as Examiner has shown that the independent claims are not allowable, these arguments are not convincing and rejection of the dependent claims is also maintained.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Specification [0055]: “The terms "line of business" as used herein refers to a company line of business, such as
banking, infrastructure, insurance etc.”
2 Specification [0055]: “The terms "line of business" as used herein refers to a company line of business, such as
banking, infrastructure, insurance etc.”
3 Specification [0055]: “The terms "line of business" as used herein refers to a company line of business, such as
banking, infrastructure, insurance etc.”
4 Specification [0055]: “The terms "line of business" as used herein refers to a company line of business, such as
banking, infrastructure, insurance etc.”