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 .
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/20/2026. In the current amendments, claims 1, 3-6, 14, and 19-20 are amended, claims 9-13 are cancelled, and claims 21-25 are newly presented. Claims 1-8 and 14-25 are pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and remarks filed on 07/20/2026, the claim objections, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections made in the previous office action are withdrawn.
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 1-8 and 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating … parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, wherein the parameters of the second machine learning model are updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user”
“after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query … to generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation); and after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing a first query to generate a first response based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“a first computing device”
“a first chat bot”
“the first chat bot comprising a first machine learning model”
“by the first computing device”
“a second machine learning model”
“a second chat bot”
“the second chat bot comprising a second machine learning model”
“with the second chat bot”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receiving, by a first computing device, a set of data corresponding to a context of a first conversation between a first user and a first chat bot … the set of data comprising first parameters of the first machine learning model”
“receiving, by the first computing device, a first query from a second user”
“presenting, by the first computing device, the first response to the second user”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“accessing at least one of an information source or a profile associated with the second user to generate the first response”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass accessing an information source or user profile associated with the second user to generate the first response (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate the first response based on an information source or profile associated with the second user).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 1. The limitations of claim 3 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“training, based on training data, the second machine learning model of the second chat bot to generate one or more responses, the training data comprising the portion of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot, the second machine learning model being trained to establish a relationship between one or more training contexts of one or more conversations and one or more ground- truth responses”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“wherein the set of data comprises a portion of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot without the private information of the first user”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of receiving a set of data. The limitation of claim 3 further limits the imitation of claim 1 by further defining what the set of data comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models, and generic training of the machine learning model for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating, based on the portion of the parameters of the first machine learning model, parameters of the second machine learning model of the second chat bot to generate one or more responses,”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass updating parameters of the second machine learning model based on the portion of parameters of the first machine learning model in order to generate the responses (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the portion of parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of the second machine learning model in order to generate the responses).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the second machine learning model being trained to establish a relationship between one or more training contexts of one or more conversations without the private information of the first user and one or more ground-truth responses”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation:
“wherein the set of data comprises a portion of parameters of the first machine learning model corresponding to the first conversation”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of receiving a set of data. The limitation of claim 4 further limits the imitation of claim 1 by further defining what the set of data comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models, and generic training of the machine learning model for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating the portion of parameters of the first machine learning model by identifying a subset of parameters of the first machine learning model that correspond to features of the first conversation”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating the portion of parameters of the first machine learning model by identifying a subset of parameters that correspond to features of the first conversation (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify a subset of parameters corresponding to features of the first conversation to generate the portion of parameters of the first machine learning model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 4 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models, and generic training of the machine learning model are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 4 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models, and generic training of the machine learning model for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 1. The limitations of claim 6 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“first client device”
“second client device”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receiving, from a first client device of the first user, a message from the first user, the message comprising a link to the set of data”
“in response to receiving a request from a second client device of the second user to adopt the context of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot, accessing the link to retrieve the set of data”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, client devices, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving, presenting/transmitting, accessing/retrieving data). Furthermore, the “receiving …”, “presenting …”, and “accessing …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 6. The limitations of claim 7 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 6.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“wherein the message is received as at least one of a text, video, or audio message, a post to a social network, a meta package as an ingredient to assimilate into another conversation factor, or content on a webpage”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 6 of receiving a message. The limitation of claim 7 further limits the imitation of claim 6 by further defining what the message comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 6 of a generic computing device, chat bots, client devices, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …”, “presenting …”, and “accessing …” limitations of claim 6 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, client devices, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving, presenting/transmitting, accessing/retrieving data). Furthermore, the “receiving …”, “presenting …”, and “accessing …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 8,
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“determining that the location information of the second client device satisfies the one or more geographical restrictions associated with adopting the context of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot”
“controlling presentation of the message on the second client device based on determining that the location information of the second client device satisfies the one or more geographical restrictions”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass determining that the location information of the second client device satisfies the geographical restrictions associated with adopting the context of the first conversation between the first user and first chat bot (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can determine that the location information of the second client device satisfies the geographical restrictions associated with adopting the context of the first conversation); and controlling presentation of the message on the second client device based on determining that the location information satisfies the geographical restrictions (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can based on determining that the location information of the second client device satisfies the geographical restrictions, control the presentation of the message).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“in response to receiving the request to adopt the context, accessing location information of the second client device”
“accessing one or more geographical restrictions associated with adopting the context of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 6 of a generic computing device, chat bots, client devices, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …”, “presenting …”, and “accessing …” limitations of claim 6 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, client devices, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving, presenting/transmitting, accessing/retrieving data). Furthermore, the “receiving …”, “presenting …”, and “accessing …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein prior to updating the parameters of the second chat bot, … generate a second response to the first query that is different from the first response”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass, prior to updating the parameters of the second chat bot, generating a second response to the first query that is different from the first response (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a second response to the first query that is different from the first response prior to updating the parameters of the second chat bot).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“the second chat bot”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the first response comprises one or more unstructured responses”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of generating a first response to the first query. The limitation of claim 15 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the first response comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing a first query to generate a first response comprising unstructured responses based on the context of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a first response comprising unstructured responses to the first query based on the context of the first conversation between the first user and the first chat bot).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“wherein the first query comprises one or more unstructured natural language words or phrases or graphical representations such as emojis”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of receiving a first query. The limitation of claim 15 further limits the imitation of claim 1 by further defining what the first query comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“generating the first conversation in response to a plurality of interactions between the first user and the first chat bot, the plurality of interactions comprising a set of queries and corresponding responses”
“identifying the context based on the selected portion of the plurality of interactions, the set of data being generated based on the identified context”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass generating the first conversation in response to a plurality of interactions between the first user and the first chat bot, the interaction comprising queries and corresponding responses (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can, in response to a plurality of interaction comprising queries and responses between a first user and a first chat bot, generate a first conversation); and identifying the context based on the selected portion of the plurality of interactions to generate the set of data comprising the identified context (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can identify the context based on the selected portion of the interactions in order to generate the set of data).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“receiving a first input from the first user that selects a portion of the plurality of interactions”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 16. The limitations of claim 17 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“receiving a second input from the first user to share the identified context of the first conversation with one or more other users through at least one of an encrypted message or a non-fungible token (NFT)”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 16 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 16 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating at least one additional parameter of the second chat bot based on the at least one of positive or negative feedback”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass updating an additional parameter of the second chat bot based on the positive or negative feedback (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the positive or negative feedback to update an additional parameter of the second chat bot).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“receiving input from the second user that comprises at least one of positive or negative feedback in relation to the first response”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating … parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, wherein the parameters of the second machine learning model are updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user”
“after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query … to generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation); and after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing a first query to generate a first response based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“a memory that stores instructions”
“one or more processors configured by the instructions”
“a first computing device”
“a first chat bot”
“the first chat bot comprising a first machine learning model”
“by the first computing device”
“a second machine learning model”
“a second chat bot”
“with the second chat bot”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receiving, by a first computing device, a set of data corresponding to a context of a first conversation between a first user and a first chat bot … the set of data comprising first parameters of the first machine learning model”
“receiving, by a first computing device, a first query from a second user”
“presenting, by a first computing device, the first response to the second user”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic memory, processors, computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“updating … parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, wherein the parameters of the second machine learning model are updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user”
“after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query … to generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model”
As drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)) but for the recitation of mere instructions to apply language (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation); and after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing a first query to generate a first response based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations:
“at least one processor”
“a first computing device”
“a first chat bot”
“the first chat bot comprising a first machine learning model”
“by the first computing device”
“a second machine learning model”
“a second chat bot”
“with the second chat bot”
As drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations:
“receiving, by a first computing device, a set of data corresponding to a context of a first conversation between a first user and a first chat bot … the set of data comprising first parameters of the first machine learning model”
“receiving, by a first computing device, a first query from a second user”
“presenting, by a first computing device, the first response to the second user”
As drafted, are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements are merely directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the updating of the parameters of the second chat bot is performed without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 20 of updating parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot. The limitation of claim 21 further limits the limitation of claim 20 by further defining what the updating comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user and without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation and without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 20 of a generic processor, computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 20 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic processor, computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 22 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Please see the analysis of claim 1. The limitations of claim 22 are only additional elements to the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“wherein the set of data comprises metadata representing the context of the first conversation without including personally identifiable information of the first user”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of receiving a set of data. The limitation of claim 22 further limits the imitation of claim 1 by further defining what the set of data comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 23 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the updating configures the second chat bot to adopt the conversational personality without transmitting content of the first conversation”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of updating parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot. The limitation of claim 23 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the updating comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user and configuring the second chat bot to adopt the conversational personality without transmitting content of the first conversation (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation and configuring the second chat bot to adopt the conversational personality without transmitting content of the first conversation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation:
“wherein the set of data comprises representation of a conversational personality established by the first machine learning model”
As drafted, is an additional element that is part of the insignificant extra-solution activity of claim 1 of receiving a set of data. The limitation of claim 23 further limits the imitation of claim 1 by further defining what the set of data comprises. In addition, the recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 24 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the updating of the parameters of the second chat bot is performed without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 1 of updating parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot. The limitation of claim 24 further limits the limitation of claim 1 by further defining what the updating comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user and without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation and without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 1 of a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 1 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 25 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitations:
“wherein the updating of the parameters of the second chat bot is performed without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation”
As drafted, is part of the abstract idea of claim 19 of updating parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot. The limitation of claim 25 further limits the limitation of claim 19 by further defining what the updating comprises. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses updating parameters of the second machine learning model of a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, the parameters of the second machine learning model being updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user and without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation (corresponds to evaluation and judgement; in particular, a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters of the first machine learning model to update parameters of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation and without training the second machine learning model on content of the first conversation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements that are mere instructions to apply (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of additional elements in claim 19 of a generic memory, processors, computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models are reciting mere instructions to apply language such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions. Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations of claim 19 are additional elements that correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic memory, processors, computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/20/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It is respectfully submitted that proper application of the full Mayo two-step analysis reveals that (1) the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea (Mayo step one) and (2) assuming, arguendo, that the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea, the claims at issue are nevertheless directed to patentable subject matter because they contain an "inventive concept" that is sufficient to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (Mayo step two).
1. Step 2A, Prong One - The claims do not recite an abstract idea
The Office asserts that claim 1 recites a mental process because a human "with the assistance of pen and paper" could update parameters of a chat bot and generate a response. This characterization is incorrect. Under MPEP § 2l06.04(a)(2)(III)(A), a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitations that "cannot practically be performed in the human mind," (emphasis added) including where "the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." See SRIInt'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim 1, as amended, recites operations on the internal parameters of machine learning models that cannot, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The following features are pertinent to the determination that the claims do not recite an abstract idea:
* Receiving a set of data comprising first parameters of a first machine learning model. The set of data is not human-comprehensible conversational content but the numerical parameters that define the internal state of a trained first machine learning model.
* Updating parameters of a second machine learning model based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model. This is a manipulation of the internal parameters of one trained model using the parameters of another trained model – an operation on model parameters (e.g., weights of a neural network), not an "evaluation" or "judgment" that a person performs mentally.
* Performing the update without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user. The update mechanism operates on parameters that represent the first conversation rather than the conversation content itself, such that the underlying conversation data is not received or shared.
* Processing the first query with the second chat bot to generate the first response based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model. The response is produced by applying the updated model parameters, not by a mental evaluation.
A human mind is not equipped to derive and substitute the numerical parameters of a trained machine learning model, nor to generate a response by applying such parameters. As in SRIInt'l, where the court declined to treat the collection and analysis of network packets as a mental process because "the human mind is not equipped" to perform those operations, the present claims recite manipulation of machine learning model parameters that the human mind is not equipped to perform. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office’s assertion that a human could perform these steps "with the assistance of pen and paper" because it disregards the specific requirements of the amended limitations, which operate on the parameters of the models. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), and Step 2A Prong One should be answered in the negative.
2. Step 2A, Prong Two - Any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application
Even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, the claim as a whole integrates any such exception into a practical application. As the MPEP instructs: …
The claims are directed to a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to a particular technological solution for transferring a conversational context from a first chat bot to a second chat bot by updating the parameters of the second machine learning model based on the parameters of the first machine learning model, without revealing the content of the underlying first conversation.
This provides an improvement to machine learning chat bot technology: a second chat bot is configured to generate responses reflecting the context of a prior conversation while the private information of the first user is protected because the conversation content is neither received nor shared.
As described in the specification, this approach "enhances privacy protection as the underlying conversation data ... is not received or shared but only the parameters of the ... machine learning model that represent such a conversation," and recreates "some of the benefits of personalization through cookies but without the concerns and limitations of disclosing personally identifiable information" (paragraph [0020]). The specification thus identifies, with sufficient detail, an improvement to machine learning technology that a person of ordinary skill would recognize, as required by MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and @ 2106.05(a).
The following features of claim 1 are pertinent to the practical application determination:
. The set of data comprises first parameters of the first machine learning model. The claim operates on model parameters, a particular data structure of the machine learning models, rather than on abstract conversational information.
. Updating parameters of the second machine learning model based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model. This is a particular way of configuring the second chat bot - adjusting its internal parameters using those of the first model - rather than the idea of transferring a conversation. This recitation is analogous to the parameter-adjustment limitation credited in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the limitation directed to adjusting the values of a plurality of parameters of a machine learning model reflected an improvement to how the model itself operates.
. Updating without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user. This limitation imposes a meaningful technical constraint on how the update is performed and provides the privacy improvement disclosed in the specification. It is a particular solution to the technical problem of personalizing one model based on another while protecting the underlying private conversation data.
. Generating the first response based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model. The response is produced by the reconfigured second model, tying the result to the specific parameter-based update.
Under the recent precedential guidance, the Office "should not dismiss additional elements as mere 'generic computer components' without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system." Lx Parte Desjardins, as incorporated into MPEP @ 2106.05(a). The MPEP, as revised, further identifies as an example of improved computer functionality "[i]mprovements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model" (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(), example xiv). Claim 1 recites precisely such adjustments to the parameters of a machine learning model, taken as an ordered combination.
When claim 1 is considered as a whole, the recited parameter-based update of the second machine learning model - performed without revealing the first conversation content -imposes a meaningful limit on any alleged exception and reflects the improvement described in the specification. The claim is accordingly integrated into a practical application, and the analysis should conclude at Step 2A.
3. Step 2B - The claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more
Even if claim 1 were found to recite an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application, the claim recites additional elements that, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged exception. As in BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir 2016), the inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the claimed elements.
Here, the ordered combination of (i) receiving a set of data comprising parameters of a first machine learning model, (ii) updating parameters of a second machine learning model based on the first model's parameters without revealing the first conversation content, and (iii) generating a response with the second model based on the updated parameters, is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional arrangement.
The Office characterized only the "receiving" and "presenting" steps as well-understood, routine, and conventional, relying on the proposition that receiving or transmitting data over a network is conventional. The Office made no such factual finding, as required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 88 l F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), regarding the specific update mechanism - updating one model's parameters based on another model's parameters while protecting the underlying conversation content. That mechanism is the inventive concept and was not addressed in the Step 2B analysis. As the revised MPEP @ 2106.05(f) instructs, additional elements are more than "apply it" when the claim recites "a technological solution to a technological problem," as in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), BASCOM, and Ex Parte Desjardins. Claim 1 recites such a technological solution - a particular parameter-based configuration of a chat bot that preserves the privacy of the first user's conversation -and therefore amounts to significantly more than any alleged exception. …
For all these reasons, claims 1-8 and 14-25 are submitted to be directed to statutory subject matter. The Office is respectfully requested to withdraw the § 101 rejection and allow the pending claims” (Remarks Pages 9-13).
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has made general assertions that claim 1 recites claim elements that are not directed to an abstract idea and that even if the claim elements are directed to an abstract idea, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite elements that cannot reasonable be characterized as covering mental processes or reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Regarding the “updating, by the first computing device, parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, wherein the parameters of the second machine learning model are updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user” limitations of claim 1, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, correspond to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper (the “updating … parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, wherein the parameters of the second machine learning model are updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user” limitation is an abstract idea that is a mental process performable by the human mind; a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can use the first parameters/weights of the first machine learning model to update parameters/weights of a second machine learning model of a second chat bot without revealing content of the first conversation with a first user to protect private information of the first user), and mere instructions to apply language using a generic computer (the “by a first computing device” limitation is mere instructions to apply language for the abstract idea of updating parameters). Regarding the “after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query with the second chatbot to generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model” limitation of claim 1, this limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, corresponds to evaluation and judgement with the assistance of pen and paper (the “after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query … to generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model” limitation is an abstract idea that is a mental process performable by the human mind; a human, with the assistance of pen and paper, can generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model), and mere instructions to apply language using a generic computer (the “with the second chatbot” limitation is mere instructions to apply language for the abstract idea of updating parameters). The “by the first computing device” and “with the second chatbot” limitations are high-level recitations of applying a generic computing device and a chatbot to data such that they amount to no more than merely using a computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions. As such, the recitation that the parameter updating and query processing are to be performed with such a computing device and chatbot is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generically recited class of computer algorithm. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.”. Furthermore, since the “updating … parameters of a second machine learning model …” and “after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query … to generate a first response …” limitations are directed to a judicial exception, they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
Thus, it is the additional elements that are analyzed to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, not the judicial exception itself. The additional elements of claim 1 of “a first computing device”, “a first chat bot”, “the first chat bot comprising a first machine learning model”, “by the first computing device”, “a second machine learning model”, “a second chat bot”, “the second chat bot comprising a second machine learning model”, and “with the second chat bot”, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are additional elements that are high level recitations of applying a generic computer and generic computer components to implement the abstract ideas such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. … Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Moreover, the recitation of “receiving, by a first computing device, a set of data corresponding to a context of a first conversation between a first user and a first chat bot … the set of data comprising first parameters of the first machine learning model”, “receiving, by the first computing device, a first query from a second user”, and “presenting, by the first computing device, the first response to the second user”, as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the additional elements correspond to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are “mere instructions to apply an exception” (I.e. the additional elements describe a generic computing device, chat bots, and machine learning models for applying the abstract ideas) or insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. receiving and presenting/transmitting data). Furthermore, the “receiving …” and “presenting …” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional according to MPEP 2106.05(d) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network). Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, regarding Applicant’s assertions regarding Ex Parte Desjardins, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are distinguishable from Ex Parte Desjardins because Desjardins includes an improvement to machine learning related to addressing catastrophic forgetting while the current claims only use generic machine learning models and chat bots at a high level and a generic computing device to perform the abstract ideas related to parameter updates and query processing. In other words, Desjardins provided a specific training strategy that allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones, while the current claims merely employ a generic computing device, machine learning models, and chatbots at a high level for performing the abstract ideas of parameter updates and query processing. Therefore, considered as a whole, claim 1 is directed to mental processes performed by using a generic computer programmed with a generically recited class of computer algorithm and do not recite additional element(s) that can provide any alleged solution, improvement, or inventive concept. As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor do the claims contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
In other words, the limitations of “updating … parameters of a second machine learning model for a second chat bot based on the first parameters of the first machine learning model, wherein the parameters of the second machine learning model are updated without revealing content of the first conversation thereby protecting private information of the first user” and “after updating the parameters of the second chat bot, processing the first query … to generate a first response to the first query based on the updated parameters of the second machine learning model” in claim 1 are abstract ideas that are directed to a judicial exception, so they cannot provide any alleged solution or improvement. Additionally, the limitations of “receiving …” and “presenting …” are additional elements corresponding to insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, the other additional elements recited in claim 1 are directed to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional element(s) that can provide any alleged solution, improvement, or inventive concept. As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, nor do the claims contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant relies on the arguments above regarding independent claims 19 and 20 and dependent claims 2-8, 14-18, and 21-25 therefore the response above is applicable to those claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRIAN J HALES whose telephone number is (571)272-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/BRIAN J HALES/Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
