DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE filed 11/26/2025, regarding Remarks and Amendments filed 11/06/2025.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 23, 25 are amended.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 remain canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-25 have been examined and are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025, has been entered.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”)1, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 8, 15:
determining, an intent associated with the support session;
generating a smart link to enable a second communication modality for the support session based on determining that the intent is serviced via multiple communication modalities;
activating the second communication modality based on an indication that the smart link was selected;
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the claimed method is directed towards abstract business practices of (1) make a business decision of a perceived user’s intent for initiating a support session with a business, (2) make a business decision regarding what particular communication modes may be necessary to serve the customer according to the perceived user’s intent, (3) generate a link, which is to be provided to the customer, by which the customer may communicate via the determined necessary particular communication mode, (4) activate or otherwise enable the customer to use the communication mode deemed necessary to serve the customer. There are no technical problems being solved and no technical solutions being claimed. Instead, these are all business decisions regarding which mode of communication by which the business wishes to communicate with a customer (e.g. text, voice, e-mail, etc…) all for business reasons.
Each of these step appear to be common business practices with no technical problem being solved and no technical solution provided for solving a technical problem. Note there is no technical improvement or solution for “generating” a “smart link”. Thus all of these steps fall into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. first and second virtual agent2 device(s) in a support session system; one or more processors; non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, etc…) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer components, “link” them to a field of use (i.e. in this case customer support), or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (data-gathering, collection, transmittal, or storage). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. There is no improvement to technology or computer functioning. Furthermore, simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A method, comprising: receiving, by a first virtual agent device in a support session system and from a user device via a first communication modality, a support request to setup a support session … providing, by the support session system and to the user device, the smart link to enable the second communication modality for the support session based on generating the smart link; providing, by the second virtual agent device in the support session system and to the user device via the second communication modality, an indication of a conversation history between the user device and the first communication modality based on activating the second communication modality.”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “receiving requests” regardless of whether the request is received via some generic software called a “virtual agent” or by some other generic means of receipt; nor is applicant’s invention a technique or technical solution for “providing” information such as a “smart link” or a “communication modality” (e.g. a text msg or user interface) by which the customer can communicate with the business. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and “link” them to a field of use (such as customer service) or are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data-gathering and transfer, etc…) as pertains to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to “link” the idea to a field of use, or “apply” the idea via generic computing components, or insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 3, 10, 17 each recite the following: “…wherein the second communication modality is at least one of: an in-application communication modality, or a web-based communication modality.” However, a description of a communication mode such as web-based (e.g. an internet web-page user interface” is not applicant’s invention. Applicant has not invented an in-application communication modality, or a web-based communication modality. Instead, the feature is descriptive of the context in which the abstract idea is intended to operate; i.e. the abstract idea of communicating with a customer is described here as being either an in-application communication modality, or a web-based communication modality. However, descriptions of well-known communication modes which provides context by which the abstract idea is implemented is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite a limitation directed towards the following: “determining, by the first virtual agent device in the support session system, an intent associated with the support session” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The limitation is considered impermissible new matter.
Examiner notes, that the Remarks of counsel regarding these amendments do not offer any suggestion where support might be found in the original disclosure for this amended feature. Indeed, the Examiner also finds no evidence of support for this feature in the original disclosure (original claims, drawings, specification). Instead, the Examiner finds that Applicant’s Specification teaches a different device serves to provide this now claimed functionality; e.g. per [0021] the Specification appears to be clear that it is the “conversational platform device 108” which may determine "an intent"; this is commensurate with Fig. 1a step 120 of the drawings depicting the same. Nowhere in the Specification or original disclosure does the Examiner finds that applicant contemplates a "first virtual agent device" determines "an intent". Examiner notes that independent claims 8 and 15 have not been amended to claim a “first virtual agent device…” determines “an intent”, etc… and therefore, these claims do not suffer the same deficiency as identified above.
Therefore, applicant fails to have support for this new limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is improperly directed to impermissible new matter.
Dependent claims 3-6 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roberts et al. (US 2019/0019197 A1; hereinafter, “Roberts”) in view of Brogden et al. (US 2017/0279810 A1; hereinafter, “Brogden”) in view of Vaughn et al. (US 2020/0027553 A1; hereinafter, “Vaughn”)
Claims 1, 8, 15 (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claims 1, 8, 15 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Roberts as shown teaches the following:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a first virtual agent device in a support session system and from a user device via a first communication modality, a support request to setup a support session (Roberts, see at least [0024]-[0025 and [0030]-[0031], teaching, e.g.: “…At step 210, a customer support request is received. The request may be received using any of the techniques described herein. For example, the request may be a message containing text or voice [via first or second communication modalities], the request may be received by an automated process [by a virtual agent device] or by a CSR, and the request may be made using any appropriate device (e.g., smartphone, desktop computer, etc.) or application (SMS, email, smartphone app, etc.)…”);
determining, by the […] support session system, an intent3 associated with the support session (Roberts, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0031] At step 220, a feature vector is computed using the customer support request. The feature vector may include any of the features described herein, such as an intent computed from text of the customer support request (e.g., obtained from a text message or performing automatic speech recognition on a speech signal)…”);
Although Roberts teaches the above limitations, and teaches as shown supra, e.g. [0030]-[0031], his system is capable of receiving and communicating with customers using text or voice [via first or second communication modalities], and as shown supra, Roberts teaches his system determines an “intent” of a user’s service request and teaches, e.g. per at least [0057] the determined intent of the customer support service request, e.g. as determined from the text of the request, is used to make a decision regarding how best to further communicate and serve the customer, e.g. deciding a technician must make an in-person “service call”, etc… Roberts may not delve into the minutia as recited below regarding service response to such service requests. However, Roberts in view of Brogden teaches the following:
generating, by the support session system, a smart link to enable a second communication modality for the support session based on determining that the intent is serviced via multiple communication modalities; providing, by the support session system and to the user device, the smart link to enable the second communication modality for the support session based on generating the smart link (Brogden, see at least [0144]-[0162], teaching, e.g. per [0157]: “…Step 362…The forwarded communication may, in the case of an email, SMS or instant message, comprise a "smart link" as discussed above to enable a user to access easily the user interface 110 [second communication modality]….”; and as noted per the aforementioned passages, this “smart link” is generated based on a determined “Privacy Level” [e.g. the intent] of the communication [i.e. the service request]; e.g. see again [0144]-[0150]: “Step 356: Determine Privacy Level [e.g. the intent] of Communication [the service request]… for example, forwarding the email on to the user's external email accounts or their SMS/instant messaging accounts… if the communication [service request] has a high privacy setting (i.e. is “private”) [intent is keep request private] then the content of the communication is not available outside of the user interface 110 [second communication modality]… The forwarded communication may, in the case of an email, SMS or instant message, comprise a "smart link" as discussed above to enable a user to access easily the user interface 110 [second communication modality]…”; Brogden’s user may send a communication, such as a request for service e.g. to communicate with a group, and the determined intent of this request is to keep the communication “private” among the group. Based upon this determination, a “smart link” is generated and sent to each member of the group, including the user initiating the communication request. The user initiating the private communication request, as well as the group, receives the “smart link” and this may be via a different communication modality than which was used to send the request, e.g. via SMS rather than e-mail, and the “smart link” enables the user to connect to a user interface 110 [second communication modality] of the system where other information may be viewed.);
activating, by […] the support session system, the second communication modality based on an indication that the smart link was selected (Brogden, see citations noted supra including also at least [0115], teaching: “…Once the user selects the smart link, then, the code is used to complete the initial security check stage as set out in steps 200 to 206 and the user is simply required to complete the final stages of security verification as set out in steps 208 to 216…”); and
providing, by the […] support session system and to the user device via the second communication modality an indication of a conversation history between the user device and the first communication modality based on activating the second communication modality (Brogden, see citations noted supra, including also at least Fig. 3, [0067]-[0073], and [0117], teaching, e.g.: “…Within the system 100, the user is able to view the communication history and complete various actions; e.g. read emails, review email chains, send further emails. When the user chooses to send emails to group members, the email is logged on the system and then the secure server 102 sends a message to any other members of that relationship…”; after the user selects the “smart link” and accesses user interface 110 [second communication modality] of the system, the user is provided with the communication history [conversation history] which has already occurred between the user and all other users of all various relationships including all which occurred via different communication modalities, e.g. via SMS, external e-mail, internal e-mail, etc…)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Brogden (directed towards secure online communication techniques including providing a "smart link" to a user, where such “smart link” is generated based on user’s desired level of privacy [intent] of communication request, and which when selected by the user enables the user to easily access a system user interface 110 [second communication channel] via which the user may not only communicate privately but also be provided a conversation history between the user and all other users and associated relationships) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Roberts (already directed towards a system/method of online communication which allows a user to submit a service request communication and which analyzes such request to determine an intent of the request to decide which channels of communication and service to provide to the user) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Brogden to the device/method of Roberts to perform the limitations in question because the secure online communication techniques of Brogden are pertinent to the system/method of Roberts and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Although Roberts/Brogden teach the above limitations and Roberts teaches his customer support request may be received by “an automated process” [by a virtual agent device], and therefore Roberts certainly contemplates use of such “automated process” [virtual agent device] within his system [customer support session system] to perform functionality associated with handling different modes of communication such as text and speech, they may not explicitly teach there are different such automated processes, e.g. first and second virtual agent devices, which perform the functionality which they do teach their systems perform, as already shown supra. Nonetheless, Roberts/Brogden, in view of Vaughn teaches the following:
First virtual agent device… ; second virtual agent device…(Vaughn, see at least Figs. 4-5 regarding virtual agents, each specializing in different knowledge domains such as text, speech, etc… and see at least [0010], teaching, a support session system including “… a processor of a distributed virtual-assistant manager (DVAM) receiving notice that a user has initiated a user session, where the expert system comprises the DVAM, a front-end program that interacts with the user, a chat table, a virtual agent intent (VAI) table, and a set of pretrained virtual agents [first and second virtual agents]…”; see also at least [0110]-[0112] and [0120]-[0121], e.g.: “…Each record may also include a field capable of identifying a virtual assistant 430 that has been trained to address issues in the particular domain identified by the inferred meaning or context;... In step 570, DVAM 420 determines which virtual agent 430 possesses expertise in the domain identified in step 560. This determination is performed by means of a simple lookup into the VAI table 450, which cross-references domains and virtual agents. In step 580, DVAM 420 selects the virtual agent 430 identified in step 590. This selected agent 430 will respond to the user input and will begin handling the user session…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying a known technique of Vaughn (directed towards use of specialized virtual agents, e.g. first and second virtual agents, which are each trained to handle different domains of customer intent and are chosen to respond and communicate with a customer and handle the customer’s user session based on identified customer intent) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Roberts/Brogden (already directed towards automated processes by which to handle customer user sessions such as via text and speech inquiries, etc…) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Vaughn to the device/method of Roberts/Brogden in order to use specialized first and second virtual agents, per Vaughn’s technique, to perform the functions and functionality which is already taught by Roberts/Brogden because Roberts and Vaughn are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06N 5/00 – computing arrangements using knowledge-based methods) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious
Claims 3, 10, 17 (Original)
Roberts/Brogden/Vaughn teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Roberts in view of Brogden teaches the following: …wherein the second communication modality is at least one of: an in-application communication modality, or a web-based communication modality (Brogden, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0101]-[0103], noting the “user interface 1110” [second communication modality] through which the user communicates with the system is homepage [web-based] accessible via an internet browser or can be carried out through an application (or “app”), etc…).
Claims 4, 11, 18 (Original)
Roberts/Brogden/Vaughn teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Roberts in view of Brogden teaches the following: …further comprising: providing, via the second communication modality, information that provides a context associated with one or more messages conveyed to the user device during the support session via the first communication modality (Brogden, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0141]-[0142], teaching, e.g.: “…At step 354, the communication (which may be an email/SMS/instant message etc.) is added to the communication log. The communication log is viewable within the user interface 110 and within the relevant [a context] relationship. All valid participants can view the email communication log from within their respective user interface 110. If a communication is sent from an external source (e.g. external email address or sms [first communication modalities]) then the communication will be marked to notify the readers of this…”; the communication log includes indication of what mode of communication was used to submit the communication).
Claims 22, 24 (previously presented)
Roberts/Brogden/Vaughn teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Roberts in view of Brogden teaches the following: … wherein the smart link that has a signed universal resource locator (URL), wherein the signed URL is digitally signed using a private key.. (Brogden, see at least citations noted supra, including [0111]-[0112], teaching, e.g.: “…The "smart link" comprises, in embodiments, three elements: a company ID, a page direction and a security verification code. The company ID may be the company environment "homepage" URL. The page direction may be a link to the browser implementation of the user interface 110 as described above. Finally, the security verification code serves as a security check to negotiate the initial layer of security as set out in steps 200 to 206…”)
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roberts in view of Brogden, Vaughn, and further in view of Fox (US 2003/0179876 A1; hereinafter, “Fox”)
Claims 5, 12, 19 (Original)
Although Roberts/Brogden/Vaughn teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Roberts teaches e.g. per [0030]: “…the request may be received by an automated process or by a CSR, and the request may be made using any appropriate device (e.g., smartphone, desktop computer, etc.) or application (SMS, email, smartphone app, etc .)…”, which implies a request to a Customer Service Representative is due to an “escalation” being requested by a user, e.g. because “automated system” is not adequately addressing the user’s requests, they may not explicitly teach this nuance or the following nuances regarding such service requests. However, regarding these features as recited below, Roberts/Brogden in view of Fox teaches the following:
…further comprising: receiving, from the user device, an escalation request to communicate with a live person during the support session and enabling, based on the escalation request, communication between the user device and a terminal device associated with the live person via at least one of: the first communication modality, or the second communication modality (Fox, see at least [0007]-[0009], teaching old and well-known systems, “…usually provide for some sort of escalation procedure to "pound out" which enables frustrated customers to get to a live agent. In practice, the vast majority of customers request escalation at the very first opportunity resulting in most inquiries going to live agents… Voice Recognition Units (VRU) attempt to deal with the limitations of IVR's by allowing the user to speak instead of using touch-tone buttons. This approach reduces frustration of users by allowing them to simply speak their requests…”)
In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands there is motivation to both receive an escalation request and to connect a user, making such a request, to a live person (such as Roberts’ or Brogden’s Customer Service Representative), because Fox also teaches this is the most often result. Therefore, because of this motivation, it would have been obvious to perform the limitation in question and use the communication channels/modalities already being used by Roberts/Brogden to facilitate this requested communication between the user device and a terminal device associated with the live person because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roberts in view of Brogden, Vaughn, further in view of Moore (US 8,971,312 A1; hereinafter, “Moore”)
Claims 6, 13, 20 (Original)
Although Roberts/Brogden/Vaughn teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and they each teach that various modes of communication may be used, e.g. SMS, external email, internal email, etc…, they may not explicitly teach the following nuanced order in which communication modalities may be used. However, regarding this feature, Roberts/Brogden in view of Moore teaches the following:
…wherein the first communication modality is a voice-based communication modality, and wherein the second communication modality is a text-based communication modality (Moore, see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 5 and [14:41-63], teaching, e.g.: “…the subscriber may be able to alter the handling of the call [first modality is voice-based] via instant messaging [second modality is text-based]. For example, the subscriber may use instant messaging to instruct the ISN platform 301… the subscriber may elect to "take" the call using the instant messaging client as an audio interface or a textual interface with text-speech translation being provided by the service provider. This scenario exemplifies several important advantages to a comprehensive service offering using in-network feature processing rather than relying upon processing at an end user device. The subscriber may also use instant messaging to perform a rollover from one mode of communication to another…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Moore which is applicable to a known base device/method of Roberts/Brogden to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Moore to the device/method of Roberts/Brogden in order to perform the limitation in question because Moore technique of switching between communication modalities is pertinent to the systems/methods of Roberts/Brogden which enable and allow users to switch between different modalities of communication and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 21, 23, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roberts in view of Brogden, Vaughn, further in view of Drory (US 2023/0020613 A1; hereinafter, “Drory”)
Claims 21, 23, 25 (currently amended)
Although Roberts/Brogden teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, including an automated process [virtual agent] which receives and processes text messages and speech, e.g. per Roberts at [0030]: “…For example, the request may be a message containing text or voice, the request may be received by an automated process [virtual agent]…”, which implies the “automated process” which receives the voice request includes an IVR system (interactive voice response system), Roberts may not explicitly teach IVR with chatbot. However, regarding these features as recited below, Roberts in view of Drory teaches the following:
… wherein the first virtual agent device in the support session system includes an interactive voice response (IVR) chatbot that communicates with the user device via the first communication modality. (Drory, see at least [0005], teaching “transforming an IVR tree into a chatbot ‘skill’ remains a challenging task…” and per Figs. 2-3 and [0020]-[0021], Drory discusses: “…functional steps in a method for automated generation of a chatbot application from a provided interactive voice response (IVR) hierarchical tree, according to an embodiment…”)
In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands there is motivation to include an interactive voice response (IVR) chatbot of Drory which communicates with the user in a customer service system environment. Therefore, because of this motivation, it would have been obvious to perform the limitation in question by implementing Drory’s technique and use the communication channels/modalities already being used by Roberts/Brogden to implement an IVR chatbot via the first communication modality with which the Roberts/Brogden’s user initiates communication with their system because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 23, 25 on 11/06/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 11/06/2025, as part of RCE filed 11/26/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 101, 35 USC USC 112(a), and 35 USC 103 rejections with Roberts in view of Brogden and Vaughn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the "October 2019 Update") (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_ oct_ 2019 _ update.pdf).
2 Specification [0001]: “A virtual agent is a computer program that simulates human interaction to provide
assistance, information, and/or services to users…”
3 Specification at [0023]: “…For example, if the first input is associated with a query that indicates a request for support, then the conversational platform device 108 may determine that the intent associated with the support request is a support-based intent…”