DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amended submission filed on 10/22/2025.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Applicant’s amendment and argument have been fully considered, and is determined to be unpersuasive, therefore the rejection is being maintained.
Applicant’s main arguments are: the claim as amended is not directed toward an abstract idea. – this argument is not persuasive because the claim is a mental process that can be practically performed other than reciting generic computer and/or computer components. That is a human can perform spell checking initially using a general/standard dictionary, identifying or determining relationship between various user accounts (a human can look at profile from social media and email address and determine that there is a high probability or chance they are related, whether its friend or coworkers, that they may use or share similar vocabulary or words, and determine by looking at their chat session that some words that are deem spell correctly could actually be spell incorrectly according to the context.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea and judicial exception into a practical application. – this argument is unpersuasive because the alleged improvement is directed toward the abstract idea itself and is not integrated into a practical application. For example, the claim recites identifying a preliminary correct word based on a general lexicon, but it is not clear how the “preliminary correct word” is being selected, or what the criteria is for selecting a word when there is string of words in the chat session, does the model randomly pick a word, or look for certain low frequency or keywords or domain specific words, or words that have multiple meaning such as “bank”, or check all the words one by one against the general lexicon or dictionary? Further, the claim only recites discovering a spelling error after checking a contextual lexicon, it does not even mention a correction aspect associated with the discovery of the error. The claim as currently recited does not appear to be a practical application when does not appear to be practical limit how the alleged invention is carried out in practice, or mention the end goal or result.
Applicant argues that the claim recites significantly more than the judicial exception. – this argument is also unpersuasive, as discussed above, other than reciting generic computer components, there is nothing significantly more or additional that make the claim patent eligible. Examiner suggest incorporating additional technical details in order to make the claim patent eligible, such as how the preliminary word is being selected for example.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s amendment and argument have been fully considered, and is determined to be persuasive, therefore the rejection have been 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, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims limitations that cover performance of the limitations in the human mind with the assistance of physical aids (e.g., pen and paper), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device, client device and video conference provider”, nothing in these claim limitations precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. As a whole, claim 1 pertains to spell checking, which is a mental process that a human can do. Individually, each of the limitations also pertains to a mental process, for example:
receiving, at a computing device and from a chat session by a video conference provider, text from a first client device, the first client device associated with a first user account, wherein the video conference provider includes a general lexicon for spell checking; (e.g., a human can receive a chat session by a video conference provider (which is an application on a computer, a generic computer component), which contains text transcript from a user via a client device and user account (general or generic computer), the human can also provide general spell checking or use a standard dictionary.)
calculating, by the computing device, a probability that the first user account is related to a second user account that is participating in the chat session, wherein the first user account is associated with a contextual lexicon, and wherein the probability is calculated using a graph of nodes connected by edges, wherein the graph includes a first node that represent the first user account and a second node that represents the second user account; (e.g., the human can determine if a user account is related to another user account by looking at names of the profile or email to see if they could be related, like family member or work for same company for example, the human can also draw a social graph and determine likelihood of some type of relationship, that can be done with assistance of pen and paper.) [this could also be considered a mathematical calculation]
in response to the probability exceeding a threshold, associating, by the computing device, the contextual lexicon and the second user account; (e.g., the human can determine if there is a higher chance that the two accounts or people are related, and that a custom or context vocabulary be used for the multiple accounts. This is an evaluation or analysis step that a human does.)
and performing, by the computing device, spell checking comprising: segmenting the text into one or more words; (e.g., the human can easily segment the text into individual words. Analyzing and breaking down text is what human is used to doing.)
identifying a preliminarily correct word based on the general lexicon; (e.g., the human can initially identify the word is spelled based on general dictionary. An evaluation step that easily performed by the human.)
determining that the preliminarily correct word is misspelled based on the contextual lexicon; (e.g., the human can evaluate and determined that the initially correct spelled word is actually incorrect based on a context vocabulary or a domain or customized dictionary. An evaluation step that the human is fully capable of performing.)
and identifying the preliminary correct word as misspelled. (e.g., a human identify the word is which initially thought to be correct is actually wrong. This is an evaluation or determination step that human can easily perform.)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites generic computing components. Such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, or outputting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 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, the additional limitations of using generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The examiner further notes that the use of claimed generic computer components (“a computing device, client device and video conference provider”) invokes such generic computer components “merely as a tool to perform an existing process”. MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) further explains:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 1 recites generic computer components (“computing device, client device and video conference provider”) only, with respect to performing tasks. MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f) further provides examples of court decisions where the courts found generic computing components to be mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and further explains “increased speed” (e.g., using a computer to increase the speed of an otherwise mental process) does not provide an inventive concept. For example:
A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added).
Performing repetitive calculations. Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 9 further recites a “non-transitory CRM storing a set of instructions”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites a computing device that corresponds to the method of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same grounds as claim 1 above. While claim 17 further recites a “one or more memories” and “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories”, these are merely generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, none of these limitations (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because in either case the additional limitations merely utilize generic computer components that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer function. Claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 19, and 21-24 depend from claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Claim 3 further recite limitations reciting the mental process of: wherein the contextual lexicon comprises one or more abbreviations, product names, acronyms, team names, team member names, or jargon terms. (e.g., the contextual vocabulary set of words or dictionary may be abbreviation, product name, acronyms, team names, team member names or jargon terms.)
Claim 5 further recites the mental process of: further comprising: identifying a preliminarily misspelled words; (e.g., the human can look for typos.)
determining, that the preliminarily misspelled words is correctly spelled word based on the contextual lexicon; (e.g., the human can check contextual or customized vocabular list or dictionary when evaluating word in a text for typos.)
identifying the preliminary misspelled word as correctly spelled. (e.g., the human make the determination that a word is spelled correctly after checking the contextual or customized vocabulary or dictionaries.)
Claim 6 further recites the mental process of: further comprising: determining a language associated with the text; (e.g., the human can determine what language the text is in.)
and selecting the general lexicon and contextual lexicons based on the language. (e.g., the human can select a general/standard and contextual/customized/domain-specific vocabulary or dictionary based on the language.)
Claim 7 further recite mental processes of: wherein the chat session is associated with a video conference hosted by the video conference provider. (e.g., the human could monitor a chat session associated with a video conference hosted by the video conference provider.) [this also appears to be insignificant post solution activity]
Claim 8 further recite mental processes of: wherein the chat session is provided by a chat channel hosted by the video conference provider. (e.g., the human could read and monitor chat channel hosted by the video conference provider.) [this also appears to be insignificant post solution activity]
Claim 11 is a non-transitory CRM claim that correspond to claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is a non-transitory CRM claim that correspond to claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is a non-transitory CRM claim that correspond to claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory CRM claim that correspond to claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is a non-transitory CRM claim that correspond to claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is a computer device claim that correspond to claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 is a computer device claim that correspond to claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 22 is a computer device claim that correspond to claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 23 is a computer device claim that correspond to claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 24 is a computer device claim that correspond to claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
In sum, claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 19, and 21-24 depend from claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively, and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 19, and 21-24 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Nor do any limitations in claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 19, and 21-24: (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of using generic computer components amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 19, and 21-24 are not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Novelty
Claim would be allowable subject to overcoming 101 eligibility rejection.
The closest prior arts are: Nelms (US 20040250208) – which discloses spelling check using a general dictionary and customized dictionary. However, the spell check process ends if the word is matched to a general dictionary and does not continue to check if the word could be incorrect according to the contextual lexicon, further, it also does not disclose hosting a chat session by a video conference provider nor does it disclose a social graph and calculating probability of relationships or association between user accounts.
Huffner (US 20220215046). which discuss using a video conference provider and performing text analysis using graph analysis, but it does not discuss spelling checking nor social graph. and calculating probability of relationships or association between user accounts.
Martin (US 20200379787)- discloses social graph and determining if user accounts are related, however it does not disclose spell correction or describe calculating a probability of user relatedness using a graph of nodes and edges, nor does it detail associating a contextual lexicon based on that probability exceeding a threshold.
Dhawan (US 20200160365) – disclose using an influence graph to determine user influence based on observed activity using graphs with nodes and edges, and calculates confidence level/degree of influence based on observed activity, however it does not disclose contextual lexicon or chat session.
Little (US 9081761) – discloses method for avoiding spelling mistakes and correction suggestion by matching user against a profile of users. However, they do not mention use of a graph structure involving nodes and edges and they not mention or describe calculating the probability or threshold associated with the profile.
Gross (US 20040107089) – discloses words that are spell correct according to standard dictionary could in fact be mis-spelled after context have been taking into consideration. However, it does not disclose spell check in a chat session from a video conference provider nor disclose concept of social graph or calculating probability involving nodes or edges in a social graph.
Notwithstanding, the prior art of record is respectfully reconsidered and found to fail to teach or fairly suggest either individually or in a reasonable combination to disclose the claimed as currently recited. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 17, although in different statutory category, nevertheless they recited similar language as claim 1, therefore is subject to the condition mentioned from above. Claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13-16, 19 and 21-24 depends and further limits claims 1, 9 and 17, therefore they are also otherwise allowable for the same rationale as the claim on which they depended from.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sachidanandam US 20150134334 – discloses “A user's social graph 550 may include friends and relatives of the user who communicate with the user frequently, and/or use similar programs for media item playback. The user-specific grammar library may include media item identifiers 559 and parent container identifiers 557 related to media libraries belonging to members of a user's social graph 555. For example, friends of the user with whom the user frequently communicates online may make their media libraries public, and/or available for data mining. Media items and parent containers found in the media libraries of one or more member of the user's social graph may be weighted more than media items and parent containers not found in the media libraries of one or more member of the user's social graph. In some embodiments, members of a user's social graph may be able to share media items from their media libraries. In such embodiments, media items and parent containers from social graph member's media libraries may be weighted more than media items and parent containers accessible only through a media server. Additional weight may be given to media items and/or parent containers identified as belonging to the media libraries of multiple members of the user's social graph.” See para 0072 for additional details.
Yuen US 20140157179 – discloses “As another example, personal computing device 400 may access a social graph associated with the user (such as to determine the user's friends, contacts, customized dictionary, etc.).” See para 0052 for more details.
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 Phillip H Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-1721. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3 PM Pacific Time.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached on (571) 272-7453. 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.
/PHILIP H LAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2656
/BHAVESH M MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2656