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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed10/28/2025. Claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claims 19-20 were cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to claims 1-18 and 21-22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “improvement is analogous to those found eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rules improving computer animation timing) and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (self-referential table improving computer functionality). Here, the claimed configuration improves how a computer chat system retrieves and processes information to produce more accurate outputs using fewer resources-a technical solution to a technical problem… Additionally, the claim recites specific structural and functional features that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These features include (i) a vector database storing documents with corresponding document embeddings representing semantic meaning, (ii) distinct computerized chat, triage, and retrieval agents performing specialized processing operations, and (iii) a defined data flow between these agents that reduces hallucinations and computational load. These features collectively amount to a specific improvement in how computer systems perform conversational retrieval, rather than an instruction to "apply" an idea using generic computing components. The recited architecture imposes meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea and yields a tangible technological benefit. As such, the claim as a whole integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the exception and is thus patent eligible. Reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections of claim 1 (and its dependents) are respectfully requested. Claim 13 (and its dependents) include similar features to claim 1 and are therefore patent eligible for at least the reasons that claim 1 is patent eligible”, (see remarks , pg. 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for chatting with an agent, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as communication is performed via computing element to request and perform tasks required by individual. The computing elements such as “storage device, vector database, semantic, processor, memory, computerized chat agent, computerized retrieval agent, computerized triage agent, chat window, user interface, user computing device of claim 1, 13 and 22” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 10/28/2025 are moot in light of the newly cited Venk.
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 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for chatting with an agent.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 13 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “wherein the chat agent is configured to: receive a user input displayed, and transmit at least the user input to the triage agent; wherein the triage agent is configured to: process at least the user input to create a search query, and transmit the search query to the retrieval agent; wherein the retrieval agent is configured to: convert the search query received from the triage agent into a query embedding, query using the query embedding to retrieve one or more documents, each of the one or more documents having a respective document embedding that matches the query embedding, and send the retrieved one or more documents to the triage agent; wherein the triage agent is further configured to: based at least on content of the retrieved one or more documents, generate one or more instructions for a logical direction of a conversation between the user and the chat agent, and transmit the one or more instructions to the chat agent; wherein the chat agent is further configured to: generate a response to the user input based on the one or more instructions, and display the response; wherein each of the chat agent, the triage agent and the retrieval agent is distinct from each other” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (storage device, vector database, semantic, processor, memory, computerized chat agent, computerized retrieval agent, computerized triage agent, chat window, user interface, user computing device of claim 1, 13 and 22) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-18 and 21-22 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (storage device, vector database, semantic, processor, memory, computerized chat agent, computerized retrieval agent, computerized triage agent, chat window, user interface, user computing device of claim 1 and 13). The storage device, vector database, semantic, processor, memory, computerized chat agent, computerized retrieval agent, computerized triage agent, chat window, user interface, user computing device of claim 1 and 13, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the vector database in claim 11; semantic latent space in claims 3-4 and 15-16; chat window in claim 12; prompt generating module of claim 2; Euclidean distance in claims 7 and 19; LLM in claims 8-9 and 20; encoder or decoder in claims 9-10; computerized attention mechanism in claims 10; domain-specific database in claim 11, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 13, 17-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashmi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250028910 - hereinafter Hashmi) in view of Lauber et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250028752 - hereinafter Lauber) in view of Venkateswaran et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240194194 - hereinafter Venk).
Re. claim 1, Hashmi teaches:
A system for automated chatting, the system comprising:
at least one data storage device storing a vector database, wherein the vector database comprises (i) a plurality of documents, and (ii) for each document of a plurality of documents, a respective document embedding that represents a semantic meaning of the document; [Hashmi; ¶135, ¶166].
at least one processor; and [Hashmi; ¶135, ¶166].
a memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement a computerized chat agent, a computerized retrieval agent, and a computerized triage agent; [Hashmi; ¶135-¶136, ¶166].
wherein the chat agent is configured to:
receive a user input at a chat window displayed at a user interface of a user computing device, and [Hashmi; ¶34 shows interface for client side of the chat. While ¶136 shows received text from users used to train the chat agent].
transmit at least the user input to the triage agent; [Hashmi; ¶136 shows when it is stored such as “A text source 602 (e.g., user chats via a support interface or other communications channel with human or virtual support agents) provides instances of user text that can be stored in a set of text examples 650 for later labeling and then used, with the labels, to train production models”].
wherein the triage agent is configured to: process at least the user input to create a search query, and [Hashmi; ¶91 and ¶136].
transmit the one or more instructions to the chat agent; [Hashmi; ¶36].
wherein the chat agent is further configured to: generate a response to the user input based on the one or more instructions, and [Hashmi; ¶136-¶137 shows responding to a user].
display the response in the chat window at the user interface. [Hashmi; ¶36].
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Lauber teaches:
transmit the search query to the retrieval agent; [Lauber; ¶121-¶125].
wherein the retrieval agent is configured to:
convert the search query received from the triage agent into a query embedding, [Lauber; ¶120 shows converting from one format to another such as “Interactions may be converted from one format to another, and may include more than one different format of data: e.g. an interaction may include an audio conversation and/or a text version of that conversation created by for example automatic speech recognition (ASR). Text versions of interactions may be stored and searched”].
query the vector database using the query embedding to retrieve one or more documents, each of the one or more documents having a respective document embedding that matches the query embedding, and [Lauber; ¶37-¶42 and ¶87].
send the retrieved one or more documents to the triage agent; [Lauber; ¶37-¶42 and ¶87].
wherein the triage agent is further configured to: based at least on content of the retrieved one or more documents, generate one or more instructions for a logical direction of a conversation between the user and the chat agent, and [Lauber; ¶87].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Lauber in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Venk teaches:
wherein each of the chat agent, the triage agent and the retrieval agent is distinct from each other. [Venk; ¶27 shows threw separate agents such as “an airline's dialogue system utilizing the present invention may comprise three separate software agents: a flight-booking agent, a hotel-booking agent, and a car-renting agent”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Venk in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 5, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Lauber teaches:
wherein the respective document embedding matches the query embedding when the respective document embedding is the same as the query embedding. [Lauber; ¶37-¶42 and ¶87]. Please see motivation to combine Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 6, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Lauber teaches:
wherein the respective document embedding matches the query embedding when the respective document embedding is within a threshold distance of the query embedding. [Lauber; ¶41-¶43]. Please see motivation to combine Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 8, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi teaches:
wherein the system comprises a large language model (LLM),and wherein the chat agent and the triage agent are configured to interact with the LLM while processing the user input. [Hashmi; ¶130].
Re. claim 11, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi teaches:
wherein the vector database is a domain-specific database. [Hashmi; ¶135-¶136].
Re. claim 13,
System of claim 13 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Re. claim 17,
System of claim 17 substantially mirrors the system of claim 5.
Re. claim 18,
System of claim 18 substantially mirrors the system of claim 6.
Re. claim 21, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Venk teaches:
wherein the chat agent, the triage agent and the retrieval agent are embedded in a software application. [Venk; ¶27 shows three different agents part of a software system].
Re. claim 22,
System of claim 22 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk in view of Salter et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220329561 - hereinafter Salter).
Re. claim 2, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Salter teaches:
wherein the triage agent comprises a prompt generating module and is further configured to:
generate, using the prompt generating module, based on the retrieved one or more documents, one or more prompts including one or more questions to the user to narrow down the retrieved one or more documents; transmit the one or more prompts to the chat agent; receive, from the chat agent, one or more answers of the user in response to the one or more prompts; select, based on the one or more answers, a document from the retrieved one or more documents that is most relevant to the search query; verify content of the selected document; and transmit the selected document to the chat agent. [Salter; ¶120-¶131 shows user having a follow up question to the previous answer such as “a follow up request is received from the device of the second user. The follow up request may solicit further information about the answer. In the above example, the follow up request may ask, “When is that flight available?” At step 1025, a communication session may be facilitated between the first user and the second user. The first user may provide the further information to the second user. In the above example, the further information may be “Tuesdays at 7 AM.””].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Salter in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 14,
System of claim 14 substantially mirrors the system of claim 2.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk in view of Adcock et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20060106767 - hereinafter Adcock).
Re. claim 3, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Adcock teaches:
wherein the respective document embedding of each document is a vector including a dense representation of the document in a semantic latent space. [Adcock; ¶23-¶33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Adcock in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 4, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Adcock teaches:
wherein the query embedding is a vector including a dense representation of the query in a semantic latent space. [Adcock; ¶23-¶33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Adcock in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 15,
System of claim 15 substantially mirrors the system of claim 3.
Re. claim 16,
System of claim 16 substantially mirrors the system of claim 4.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk in view of Hamilton et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240104091 - hereinafter Hamilton).
Re. claim 7, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 6.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Hamilton teaches:
wherein the threshold distance is an Euclidean distance. [Hamilton; ¶93].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Hamilton in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 19,
System of claim 19 substantially mirrors the system of claim 7.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk in view of Hudetz et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240370479 - hereinafter Hudetz).
Re. claim 9, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 8.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Hudetz teaches:
wherein the LLM comprises a generative transformer model that comprises at least one of an encoder or a decoder. [Hudetz; ¶133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Hudetz in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 10, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk in view of Hudetz teaches system of claim 9.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Hamilton teaches:
wherein the at least one of an encoder or a decoder is configured to apply a computerized attention mechanism over its respective inputs while processing the user input. [Hudetz; ¶133-¶140].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Hudetz in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk in view of Beaver et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240355318 - hereinafter Beaver).
Re. claim 12, Hashmi in view of Lauber in view of Venk teaches system of claim 1.
Hashmi doesn’t teach, Beaver teaches:
wherein the triage agent is further configured to:
monitor a number of negative messages from the user on the chat window, and [Beaver; ¶57 monitors chats for negative communication]
direct the chat to a human being if the number of negative message exceeds a threshold number. [Beaver; ¶57 shows the communication is elevated a human representative].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Beaver in the system of Hashmi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628