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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the 101 the claims deal with managing a conversation, applying rules to determine a response, selecting a tool/model based on state, filtering outputs using business and conversation rules. Those are viewed as mental process like or data processing concepts, especially where the claim focuses on the result rather than a specific technical mechanism. Although Applicant’s amended the claims to including a LLM selector trained on training data, the claims do not explicitly recite how the trained data is used for a particular purpose. Examples were provided in the interview held May 14, 2026. The claims are presented at a high level and do not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific, unconventional improvement in computer technology. The claims do not recite a particular hardware architecture, specialized data structures, concrete signal-processing steps, defined latency or safety constraints, or a specific machine-learning architecture or training regime that produces a technological improvement. The mere mention of training is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
Regarding the 101 rejection, according to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method, server and medium. Therefore, the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained below, the claims fit into the mental processing and organized human activity concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained below the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do 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 elements
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic
computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer
component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
It is explained that the present invention teaches orchestrating an online customer conversation with natural language inputs by way of example, by executing a dialog flow comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes, selecting an LLM based on an execution state of the dialog flow, prompting an LLM and validating the adherence of the LLM output to business rules and conversation rules, and transmitting a response to the customer device are not mental steps and simply cannot be performed by a human mind. As explained below, such steps are non-statutory (abstract),
Furthermore, Applicants explain that the claims recite specific improvements to the technical solution directed towards improving the functionality of conversational artificial intelligence systems to a technical problem relating to prior issues with the accuracy of functional conversational artificial intelligence systems. The claims execute a dialog flow, selects a LLM, receives a plurality of outputs, extracts entities and transmits the response and does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. Even if there are aspects of the invention being tied to a particular technology, merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Furthermore, the claims need to explicitly recite the details of the improvements. Therefore, the claims remain non-statutory under 101. the claims do not explicitly recite how the trained data is used for a particular purpose. The claims are presented at a high level and do not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific, unconventional improvement in computer technology. The claims do not recite a particular hardware architecture, specialized data structures, concrete signal-processing steps, defined latency or safety constraints, or a specific machine-learning architecture or training regime that produces a technological improvement. The mere mention of training is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
Lastly, it is noted that automating requires routine skill in the art and providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are directed to organizing human activity (managing and conducting customer service conversations), extracting and validating information (collecting entities, checking them against business rules), and using probabilistic language processing to select appropriate responses. These concepts fall within the realm of the judicially excepted categories of abstract ideas, specifically certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes/information processing that can be performed by a person.
Statutory Category; Claim 1 recites “A method for orchestrating an online customer conversation by a virtual assistant server….” The claim is directed to a process and therefore meets the statutory category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A — Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea): Claim 1 recites the steps including, inter alia, “automatically executing a dialog flow corresponding to a use case of one or more utterances received from a customer device,” “selecting a large language model (LLM) from a plurality of LLMs,” “receiving a plurality of outputs from the selected one of the plurality of LLMs,” “validating adherence of: the extracted one or more entities to one or more business rules; and the response to one or more conversation rules,” and “transmitting the response … to the customer device when the corresponding validation is successful.”
These recited concepts are considered an abstract idea, specifically certain methods of organizing human activity and information processing (managing customer interactions, extracting entities, applying business/conversation rules, and generating/validating responses). As such, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A — Integration into a Practical Application
Claim 1 refers to a “virtual assistant server,” selection among LLMs, and a “probabilistic approach to language generation,” but the claim does not recite specific, unconventional machine implementation details or a specific technological improvement to the functioning of the “virtual assistant server” or the LLMs themselves. The claim elements are recited at a high level of generality and use generic computer functions (selection, prompting, receiving outputs, validation, transmission).
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application sufficient to render the claim eligible under step 2A.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” / Significantly More: Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the additional elements must supply an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The additional elements recited in claim 1 — including “selecting a large language model (LLM) from a plurality of LLMs,” “receiving a plurality of outputs … based on a plurality of prompts,” and “validating adherence … using a probabilistic approach to language generation based on patterns learned from the one or more conversation rules and the one or more business rules” — are presented functionally and at a high level. The claim does not identify a particular, unconventional algorithm, specialized hardware, or a specific non-generic configuration that provides a technological improvement beyond the abstract idea.
On the present record, the recited additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without additional elements that amount to significantly more.
The dependent claims recite making determinations, generating data based on validation failure and receiving data, which is non-statutory (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights