DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 05/27/2026.
a. Claims 1, 9, 17 are amended.
b. Claims 7, 15, 20 were previously cancelled.
Overall, Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims priority to provisional application 63/366,356 and 63/366,345, both filed on 06/14/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-6, 8-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-8 are directed to a computer implemented method, claims 9-16 are directed to a system, and claims 17-19 are directed to a computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 1 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A method for continuing interactions across modalities and technologies, comprising:
[B] receiving, by a computer program executed by a backend electronic device and from an in-person digital assistant, identifying information for a customer that is interacting with the in-person digital assistant on a first electronic device;
[C] identifying, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant;
[D] receiving, by the computer program, a state of the interaction for the interaction from the in-person digital assistant device and saving the state of the interaction;
[E] receiving, by the computer program and from a metaverse digital assistant executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
[F] identifying, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information;
[G] applying, by the computer program, a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
[H] retrieving, by the computer program, the saved state of the interaction; and
[I] communicating, by the computer program, the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant;
[J] wherein the second electronic device is configured to continue the interaction with the customer using the saved state of interaction.
Claim 1 recites: receiving identifying information associated with the customer ([B], [E]); identifying the customer ([C], [F]); receiving and saving the state of interaction ([D]); applying risk rule ([G]); retrieving and communicating the save state information ([H]-[I]); and continue the interaction with the customer ([J]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents managing user information.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), mitigating risk, because the claim language recites identifying the user and interacting with the user, and limiting access control. The applicant’s specification on [0003] recites “transfer of funds from one account to another that requires the customer to be present to execute the transaction.” The one of skill in the art can determine, the user is performing a transaction based on the paragraph. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification on [0051] recites “computer program 135 may implement certain risk rules before allowing the interaction to continue. For example, computer program 135 may prevent “impossible travel” where a customer is prevented from continuing an interaction initiated on customer electronic device 110 at a physical location if, based on the location of customer electronic device 110, indicates that it would be impossible for the customer to be at a physical location.” The one of skill in the art can determine that this a risk management as it limits the user access control based on the location. Additionally, the recited limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions and Fundamental economic principals or practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that embodies a judicial exception.
Alternatively, the overall covers agreement in the form of observation, evaluation because the claim language recites receiving identifying information, identifying the customer, receiving interaction, saving the interaction, and continue the interaction. The steps for receiving identifying information, and identifying the customer can be performed manually or mentally, as it would require one user to collect identifying information and observing the customer to identify them. Additionally, the step for receiving, saving, and continuing the interaction can be performed manually or mentally, as it would require one user to observe the customer’s action, memorize their action and continuing assisting the customer. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “computer program,” “electronic device,” “in-person digital,” “metaverse digital,” “device” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” These additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of managing user information. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: computer program ([B]-[I]), electronic device ([B], [E], [G], [J]), in-person digital ([B]-[D]), metaverse digital ([E]-[I]), device ([D]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [B]-[J]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of managing user information could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. The limitations of independent claim 9 shown in bold recite an abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below.
[A] A system, comprising:
[B] a first electronic device executing an in-person digital assistant;
[C] a second electronic device executing a metaverse digital assistant; and
[D] a backend electronic device executing a computer program; wherein:
[E] the in-person digital assistant receives an interaction from a customer;
[F] the in-person digital assistant receives identifying information from the customer;
[G] the in-person digital assistant provides the identifying information to the computer program;
[H] the computer program identifies the customer using the identifying information;
[I] the computer program receives a state of the interaction for the interaction from the in-person digital assistant and saves the state of the interaction;
[J] the metaverse digital assistant receives the identifying information from the customer;
[K] the metaverse digital assistant provides the identifying information to the computer program on a backend electronic device;
[L] the computer program identifies the customer using the identifying information;
[M] the computer program applies a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
[N] the computer program on the backend electronic device retrieves the saved state of the interaction;
[O] the computer program on the backend electronic device communicates the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant; and
[P] the second electronic device continues the interaction with the customer.
Claim 9 recites: receiving state of interaction ([E]); receiving and providing identifying information ([F], [G]); identifying customer ([H], [L]); applying risk rule ([M]); retrieving and communicating with the saved ([N], [O]); continue interaction with customer ([P]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents managing user information.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), mitigating risk, because the claim language recites identifying the user and interacting with the user, and limiting access control. The applicant’s specification on [0003] recites “transfer of funds from one account to another that requires the customer to be present to execute the transaction.” The one of skill in the art can determine, the user is performing a transaction based on the paragraph. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification on [0051] recites “computer program 135 may implement certain risk rules before allowing the interaction to continue. For example, computer program 135 may prevent “impossible travel” where a customer is prevented from continuing an interaction initiated on customer electronic device 110 at a physical location if, based on the location of customer electronic device 110, indicates that it would be impossible for the customer to be at a physical location.” The one of skill in the art can determine that this a risk management as it limits the user access control based on the location. Additionally, the recited limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions and Fundamental economic principals or practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 9 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Alternatively, the overall covers agreement in the form of observation, evaluation because the claim language recites receiving identifying information, identifying the customer, receiving interaction, saving the interaction, and continue the interaction. The steps for receiving identifying information, and identifying the customer can be performed manually or mentally, as it would require one user to collect identifying information and observing the customer to identify them. Additionally, the step for receiving, saving, and continuing the interaction can be performed manually or mentally, as it would require one user to observe the customer’s action, memorize their action and continuing assisting the customer. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 9 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “computer program,” “electronic device,” “in-person digital,” “metaverse digital,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” These additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of managing user information. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: computer program ([H]-[I], [K]-[O]), electronic device ([B]-[D], [K], [M]-[P]), in-person digital ([B], [E]-[G], [I]), metaverse digital ([C], [J]-[K]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 9 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [B]-[P]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of managing user information could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 17 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] receiving, from an in-person digital assistant, identifying information for a customer that is interacting with the in-person digital assistant on a first electronic device;
[B] identifying the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant;
[C] receiving a state of the interaction for the interaction from the in-person digital assistant device and saving the state of the interaction;
[D] receiving, from a metaverse digital assistant executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
[E] identifying the customer using the identifying information received from the metaverse digital assistant;
[F] applying a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
[F] retrieving the saved state of the interaction; and
[G] communicating the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant;
[H] wherein the second electronic device continues the interaction with the customer in a metaverse/web 3.0 environment.
Claim 17 recites: receiving identifying information ([A]); identifying the customer ([B], [E]); saving the state of interaction ([C]); retrieving and communicating with the saved state ([F], [G]); continue interaction with customer ([I]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents for managing user information.
The overall combination, covers agreement in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), mitigating risk, because the claim language recites identifying the user and interacting with the user, and limiting access control. The applicant’s specification on [0003] recites “transfer of funds from one account to another that requires the customer to be present to execute the transaction.” The one of skill in the art can determine, the user is performing a transaction based on the paragraph. Furthermore, the applicant’s specification on [0051] recites “computer program 135 may implement certain risk rules before allowing the interaction to continue. For example, computer program 135 may prevent “impossible travel” where a customer is prevented from continuing an interaction initiated on customer electronic device 110 at a physical location if, based on the location of customer electronic device 110, indicates that it would be impossible for the customer to be at a physical location.” The one of skill in the art can determine that this a risk management as it limits the user access control based on the location. Additionally, the recited limitation above falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions and Fundamental economic principals or practices grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 17 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Alternatively, the overall covers agreement in the form of observation, evaluation because the claim language recites receiving identifying information, identifying the customer, receiving interaction, saving the interaction, and continue the interaction. The steps for receiving identifying information, and identifying the customer can be performed manually or mentally, as it would require one user to collect identifying information and observing the customer to identify them. Additionally, the step for receiving, saving, and continuing the interaction can be performed manually or mentally, as it would require one user to observe the customer’s action, memorize their action and continuing assisting the customer. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 17 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “electronic device,” “in-person digital,” “metaverse digital,” “device,” “metaverse/web 3.0 environment” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” These additional elements do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of managing user information. Therefore, those additional elements do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: electronic device ([D], [F]), in-person digital ([A]-[C]), metaverse digital ([D]-[E], [G]), device ([C]), metaverse/web 3.0 environment ([H]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional steps of claim 17 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional elements (limitations [A]-[H]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of managing user information could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claim 17 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the state of the interaction comprises an authentication status of the customer and an identification of a transaction being conducted.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying authenticating status. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] authenticating, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant; and
[B] authenticating, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the metaverse digital assistant.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating customer. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the in-person digital assistant comprises a digital person, a chat interface, or a voice response interface.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of implementing assistant. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the first electronic device comprises a mobile electronic device.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the second electronic device continues the interaction in a metaverse/web 3.0 environment.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of continuing the interaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the in-person digital assistant and the metaverse digital assistant are of the same form.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the state of the interaction comprises an authentication status of the customer and an identification of a transaction being conducted.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying authenticating status. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] authenticating, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant and authenticating, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the metaverse digital assistant.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authenticating customer. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the in-person digital assistant comprises a digital person, a chat interface, or a voice response interface.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of implementing assistant. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the first electronic device comprises a mobile electronic device.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the second electronic device continues the interaction in a metaverse/web 3.0 environment.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of continuing the interaction. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the in-person digital assistant and the metaverse digital assistant are of the same form.
The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the state of the interaction comprises an authentication status of the customer and an identification of a transaction being conducted.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of identifying authenticating status. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract idea as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a). The non-bolded language are additional elements addressed further below. The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the in-person digital assistant comprises a digital person, a chat interface, or a voice response interface.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of implementing assistant. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly
more. (See MPEP 2106.05).
In sum, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20160308980 A1), in view of Gillis (US 20230376969 A1), in further view of Fish (US 20200084040 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 17. Singh discloses:
1. (Currently amended) A method for continuing interactions across modalities and technologies, comprising:
9. (Currently amended) A system, comprising:
17. (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon, which when read and executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform steps comprising:
[see at least (0009) a method for transitioning a device-based interaction, according to an embodiment; (0010) a machine in the example form of a computer system within which a set of instructions for causing the machine to perform one or more of the methodologies discussed herein may be executed. (0043) The memory 71 and storage devices 72 are computer-readable storage media that may store instructions that implement at least portions of the various embodiments of the invention … computer readable media can include computer-readable storage media, e.g. non-transitory media, and computer-readable transmission media.]
(claim 9) a first electronic device executing an in-person digital assistant; [see at least Fig. 1 and (0028) the user may register the tablet PC 202, the smart television 204 and the mobile phone 206 for device-based interaction with a customer service center, such as the customer service center 112]
(claim 9) a backend electronic device executing a computer program; [(0040) The instructions stored in memory 71 can be implemented as software and/or firmware to program one or more processors to carry out the actions.]
(claim 9) wherein: the in-person digital assistant receives an interaction from a customer; [see at least Fig. 2 and (0007) depicting a seamless transition of a device-based interaction from a first device to a second device and then to a third device, according to an embodiment;]
(claim 9) the in-person digital assistant receives identifying information from the customer; [(0029) user enters the alphanumeric code ‘qW19zC’ on the mobile phone 206 upon establishing a contact with the customer service center.]
(claim 1) receiving, by a computer program executed by a backend electronic device and from an in-person digital assistant, identifying information for a customer that is interacting with the in-person digital assistant on a first electronic device;
(claim 9) the in-person digital assistant provides the identifying information to the computer program;
(claim 17) receiving, from an in-person digital assistant, identifying information for a customer that is interacting with the in-person digital assistant on a first electronic device;
[(0029) The user enters the alphanumeric code ‘qW19zC’ on the mobile phone 206 upon establishing a contact with the customer service center]
(claim 1) identifying, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant;
(claim 9) the computer program identifies the customer using the identifying information;
(claim 17) identifying the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant;
[(0029) the session identifier may authenticate the user on the mobile phone 206 and uniquely identify the device-based interaction]
(claim 1) receiving, by the computer program, a state of the interaction for the interaction from the in-person digital assistant device and saving the state of the interaction;
(claim 9) the computer program receives a state of the interaction for the interaction from the in-person digital assistant and saves the state of the interaction;
(claim 17) receiving a state of the interaction for the interaction from the in-person digital assistant and saving the state of the interaction;
[(0015) Interaction is stored using an interaction data model (IDM) …The interaction data in this case is previous channel information (e.g. device=desktop, timestamps=interaction start/pause, interaction duration, task type (e.g. purchase of a device), ip, and location) … the cloud 110 may also be configured to store an on-going device based interaction. The users, such as users 102 and 104, may access the cloud 110 through the network 108.]
(claim 1) receiving, by the computer program and from […] executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
(claim 9) the […] assistant provides the identifying information to the computer program on a backend electronic device;
(claim 17) receiving, from […] executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
[(0029) the session identifier may authenticate the user on the mobile phone 206 and uniquely identify the device-based interaction]
(claim 1) identifying, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information;
(claim 9) the computer program identifies the customer using the identifying information;
(claim 17) identifying the customer using the identifying information received from the […] assistant;
[see at least (0029)the session identifier may authenticate the user on the mobile phone 206 and uniquely identify the device-based interaction. (0030) when the user transitions to a new device, the preceding device detects that the user has logged into the new device and asks the user if the user wants to continue the device-based interaction on the new device and end the device-based interaction on the preceding device.]
(claim 1) retrieving, by the computer program the saved state of the interaction; and
(claim 9) the computer program on the backend electronic device retrieves the saved state of the interaction
(claim 17) retrieving the saved state of the interaction; and
[(0029) context may further be established by receiving the device-based interaction stored on the cloud 110]
(claim 1) wherein the second electronic device is configured to continue the interaction with the customer using the saved state of interaction.
(claim 9) the second electronic device continues the interaction with the customer.
[(0038) seamless transitioning of device-based interaction to the different device, at 408, a continuation of the device-based interaction on the different device may be facilitated]
Singh discloses user interaction with an assistant, however, Singh does not disclose:
(claim 9) a second electronic device executing a metaverse digital assistant; and
(claim 9) the metaverse digital assistant receives the identifying information from the customer;
(claim 1) receiving, by the […] a metaverse digital assistant executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
(claim 9) the metaverse digital assistant provides the identifying information to the computer program on a backend electronic device;
(claim 17) receiving, by the […] a metaverse digital assistant executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
(claim 17) identifying the customer using the identifying information received from the metaverse digital assistant
(claim 1) applying, by the computer program, a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 9) the computer program applies a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 17) applying a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 1) communicating, by the computer program, the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant;
(claim 9) the computer program on the backend electronic device communicates the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant; and
(claim 17) communicating the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant;
(claim 17) wherein the second electronic device continues the interaction with the customer in a metaverse/web 3.0 environment.
Nonetheless, Gillis uses computer program to implement metaverse digital assistant to assist user discloses:
(claim 9) a second electronic device executing a metaverse digital assistant; and [(0013) the user 102 is associated with electronic devices, such as a laptop 106a and a mobile phone 106b]
(claim 9) the metaverse digital assistant receives the identifying information from the customer; [(0068) when the service representative may be a tier-n service representative, the service avatar may be a tier-n service avatar, but the user is authenticated to tier-(n−1), a message may be transmitted to the user declining assistance to the user. (reads on: the avatar receiving appropriate authentication from the user)]
(claim 1) receiving, by the […] a metaverse digital assistant executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
(claim 9) the metaverse digital assistant provides the identifying information to the computer program on a backend electronic device;
(claim 17) receiving, by the […] a metaverse digital assistant executed by a second electronic device, the identifying information;
[see at least (0032) The service representative may control one or more service avatars (i.e., metaverse digital assistant) within the metaverse. Any suitable authentication methods may be used, such as one-time passwords, passwords, multi-factor authentication, PINs, biometric attributes, and any other suitable authentication method (reads on: identifying information for authentication would the one-time passwords, passwords, multi-factor authentication, PINs, biometric attributes, etc.). (0033) The service representative may transmit the request when the service representative desires to be authenticated within the metaverse, e.g., when the service representative plans on assisting other users within the metaverse. (0091) any information described above in connection with database 111, and any other suitable information, may be stored in memory 115 … applications 119 may include one or more algorithms that encrypt information … Algorithms may be used to perform various functions such as creating an avatar and providing customer service to a user, and/or performing any other suitable tasks.]
(claim 17) identifying the customer using the identifying information received from the metaverse digital assistant; [see at least (0014) … the service avatar may be an avatar overlay instead of an entire avatar … the service representative may already have an avatar within the metaverse (reads on: the avatar is the metaverse digital assistant). (0056) the service avatar may move near the user avatar only when the user is authenticated to an appropriate level of authentication. (0060) a simple PIN may be tier 1, a password may be tier 2, a stronger password with more requirements may be tier 3, biometric security may be tier 4, a combination of password and biometrics may be tier 5. (0063) authenticating, at the customer service computer program. (reads on: authenticating user’s credentials)]
(claim 1) communicating, by the computer program, the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant;
(claim 9) the computer program on the backend electronic device communicates the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant; and
(claim 17) communicating the saved state of the interaction to the metaverse digital assistant;
[see at least (0010) The service avatar may move (virtually, within the metaverse) near the user avatar and transmit assistance from the service representative to the service avatar, which may then display or communicate that assistance in the metaverse. Assistance may take any appropriate form, such as text, speech (audio), video, backend computer assistance, etc. (0026) The program may act as an interface between the service representative and the service avatar by transmitting one or more interactions from the service representative to the service avatar (i.e., metaverse digital assistant).]
(claim 17) wherein the second electronic device continues the interaction with the customer in a metaverse/web 3.0 environment. [(0010) a user may request assistance to complete a particular transaction. The service avatar may move (virtually, within the metaverse) near the user avatar and transmit assistance from the service representative to the service avatar, which may then display or communicate that assistance in the metaverse.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Singh to include the features of Gillis. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to enable user service interaction continuation across different devices. Singh discloses persisting and resuming customer’s interactions across devices. Gillis teaches a digital assistant in the form of a metaverse avatar in the same or similar context. Because persisting and resuming customer’s interactions across devices as well as a digital assistant in the form of a metaverse avatar are implemented through the specific uses of a computer program that interacts with user’s action. The computer program of Singh are analogous to the computer program of Gillis that implements a metaverse digital assistant and could themselves be implemented to carry out the function as taught by Gillis. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Singh, as well as Gillis would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Singh/Gillis.
The combination of Singh, in view of Gillis discloses user interaction with an assistant, however, the above combination of Singh, Gillis does not disclose:
(claim 1) applying, by the computer program, a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 9) the computer program applies a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 17) applying a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
However, Fish discloses:
(claim 1) applying, by the computer program, a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 9) the computer program applies a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
(claim 17) applying a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device;
[see at least (0035) Pairing—The kiosk 130 is configured to detect the presence of a user mobile device 140 in the proximity of the kiosk 130. The user mobile device 140 can also be configured to detect the presence of a kiosk 130 in the proximity of the mobile device 140. The detection of the user mobile device 140 and/or kiosk 130 can be performed using the wireless data network interface 1302 of the kiosk 130 and the wireless data network interface 1402 of the mobile device 140. (0036) Stage 2. User Authentication—Upon detection of a user mobile device 140 in the proximity of the kiosk 130, the kiosk authentication app 1307 can prompt a user of the mobile device 140 to perform a login operation on their mobile device 140. Similarly, upon the detection of a kiosk 130 in the proximity of the user mobile device 140, the mobile device authentication app 1407 can prompt the user of the mobile device 140 to perform a login operation on their mobile device 140. (0037) Stage 3. Key Transfer—Once the authentication of the user with the mobile device 140 detected in proximity of the kiosk 130 is validated, the mobile device authentication app 1407 can transfer unique kiosk session keys from the mobile device 140 to the kiosk 130 in proximity of the mobile device 140. The transfer of the unique kiosk session keys from the user mobile device 140 to the kiosk 130 can be performed using a secure protocol of the wireless data network interface 1302 of the kiosk 130 and the wireless data network interface 1402 of the mobile device 140.]
Note: The applicant specification recites “ computer program 135 may implement certain risk rules before allowing the interaction to continue. For example, computer program 135 may prevent “impossible travel” where a customer is prevented from continuing an interaction initiated on customer electronic device 110 at a physical location if, based on the location of customer electronic device 110, indicates that it would be impossible for the customer to be at a physical location (e.g., customer electronic device 110 indicates that the customer is in California and within five minutes the customer attempts to continue an interaction from in-person digital assistant 155 or 165 at a physical location in New York).” (See paragraph 0051). Additionally, the Fish references discloses where the user is required to be in proximity of the mobile device (i.e., first electronic device) and the kiosk (i.e., second electronic device), and after the user have has been authenticated, the user can continue the interaction on the kiosk. The Fish references emphasizes both electronic devices needs be in proximity in order for the user to be validated and the interaction to continue in the other device. Thus, one of skill in the art can conclude if the user is not within the proximity (i.e., impossible travel) of the devices, then the process would not continue.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Singh, Gillis to include the features of Fish. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to enable user service interaction continuation across different devices using the devices of Singh, Gills and implementing the security features of Fish. Singh, Gillis discloses persisting and resuming customer’s interactions across devices. Fish teaches validating user’s information when the devices are within proximity to continue interaction in the second electronic device. Because both Singh, Gillis as well as Fish are implemented through field of managing user information using digital assistant and the security features of authorizing and denying transaction based on location as taught by Fish would have used the devices of Singh, Gillis to manage the user information. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Singh, Gillis as well as Fish would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Singh, Gillis/ Fish.
Regarding Claims 3, 11. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9. Singh further discloses:
authenticating, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the in-person digital assistant; and [see at least (0029) the session identifier may authenticate the user on the mobile phone 206 and uniquely identify the device-based interaction.]
Gillis further discloses:
authenticating, by the computer program, the customer using the identifying information received from the metaverse digital assistant. [see at least (0014) … the service avatar may be an avatar overlay instead of an entire avatar … the service representative may already have an avatar within the metaverse (reads on: the avatar is the metaverse digital assistant). (0056) the service avatar may move near the user avatar only when the user is authenticated to an appropriate level of authentication. (0060) a simple PIN may be tier 1, a password may be tier 2, a stronger password with more requirements may be tier 3, biometric security may be tier 4, a combination of password and biometrics may be tier 5. (0063) authenticating, at the customer service computer program. (reads on: authenticating user’s credentials)]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Singh, Gillis, Fish to include additional features of Gillis. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to enable customer service interaction continuation across different devices using devices of Singh, Gillis, Fish and using the metaverse environment of Gillis. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses authenticating user based on an identifier for a digital assistant. Gillis further teaches authenticating customer for metaverse digital assistant.. Because the computer program of Singh, Gillis, Fish are analogous to the computer program of Gillis that perform authentication of user and could themselves carry out the function as taught by Gillis. Moreover, the subject matter is a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 12, 19. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. Singh further discloses:
wherein the in-person digital assistant comprises a digital person, a chat interface, or a voice response interface. [(0032) the device-based interaction may include various forms such as an online chat, a phone conversation with an agent, a web page based interaction.]
Regarding Claims 5, 13. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9. Singh further discloses:
wherein the first electronic device comprises a mobile electronic device. [(0013) the user 102 is associated with electronic devices, such as a laptop 106a and a mobile phone 106b]
Regarding Claims 6, 14. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9. Gillis further discloses:
wherein the second electronic device continues the interaction in a metaverse/web 3.0 environment. [(0010) a user may request assistance to complete a particular transaction. The service avatar may move (virtually, within the metaverse) near the user avatar and transmit assistance from the service representative to the service avatar, which may then display or communicate that assistance in the metaverse.]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Singh, Gillis, Fish to include additional features of Gillis. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to enable customer service interaction continuation across different devices using the devices of Singh, Gillis, Fish and the metaverse environment of Gillis. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses electronic device being a mobile device. Gillis further teaches electronic device having a metaverse environment. Because the cited features and function of Singh, Gillis, Fish and Gillis both uses computer program that interact with user’s action. The devices Singh, Gillis, Fish are analogous to the devices in Gillis that interacts with user in the metaverse and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Gillis. Moreover, the subject matter is a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 8, 16. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9. Singh further discloses:
wherein the in-person digital assistant … same form. [see at least Fig. 5 and (0040) The computer system may be a server computer, a client computer, a personal computer (PC), a user device, a tablet PC, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA) (reads on: the digital assistant can be implemented on a computer system)]
Gillis further discloses:
wherein the … the metaverse digital assistant are of the same form. [see at least (0033) The service representative may transmit the request from any suitable computer, such as a smartphone, a mobile device, a virtual reality/augmented reality headset, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or other computer system. The service representative may transmit the request when the service representative desires to be authenticated within the metaverse, e.g., when the service representative plans on assisting other users within the metaverse (reads on: the metaverse digital assistant can be implemented in a computer)]
Note: The applicant specification recites “ Embodiments of the system or portions of the system may be in the form of a “processing machine,” such as a general-purpose computer, for example. As used herein, the term “processing machine” is to be understood to include at least one processor that uses at least one memory.” (See paragraph 0078). MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that “form” would be a generic computer that can implement in-person digital assistant and metaverse digital assistant.
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Singh, Gillis, Fish to include additional features of Gillis. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to enable customer service interaction continuation across different devices using the devices of Singh, Gillis, Fish and the metaverse environment of Gillis. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses persisting and resuming customer’s interactions across devices. Gillis further teaches a digital assistant in the form of a metaverse avatar. Because the cited features and function of Singh, Gillis, Fish and Gillis both uses computer program that interact with user’s action The devices Singh, Gillis, Fish are analogous to the devices in Gillis that implements metaverse digital assistant and could themselves be programmed to carry out that function as taught by Gillis. Moreover, the subject matter is a combination of old features, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh, in view of Gillis, in further view of Fish, as applied to claims [1, 9, 17] above, and in Manchireddy (US 20200168229 A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 18. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 17. The combination of Singh, in view of Gillis, in further view of Fish discloses persisting and resuming customer interactions across devices. However, the above combination of Singh, Gillis, Fish does not disclose:
wherein the state of the interaction comprises an authentication status of the customer and an identification of a transaction being conducted.
However, Manchireddy analogous in art uses computer program to disclose transaction information discloses:
wherein the state of the interaction comprises an authentication status of the customer and an identification of a transaction being conducted. [see at least Fig. 1, (Abstract) the digital assistant device can transmit, to a server computer, an authentication request comprising the biometric template and at least one user device identifier. (0134) After the service provider computer 506 determines that the cryptogram is valid … service provider computer 506 can also transmit interaction information, such as transaction information]
In addition, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the features of Singh, Gillis, Fish to include the features of Manchireddy. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to enable customer service interaction continuation across different devices. Singh, Gillis, Fish discloses persisting and resuming customer interactions across devices. Manchireddy teaches authenticating customer identification in the same or similar context. Because persisting and resuming customer interactions across devices, as well as authenticating customer identification are implemented through device capable of interacting and authenticating user. The devices of Singh, Gillis, Fish uses computer program to interact with the user using digital assistant, and analogous to the devices of Manchireddy that performs authentication and themselves be programmed to carry out the function taught in Manchireddy. And would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the features disclosed by Singh, Gillis, Fish as well as Manchireddy would function in the same manner in combination as they do separately it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Singh, Gillis, Fish/Manchireddy.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claim objections.
Applicant submits: “Claim 1, 9, 17 are objected to for informalities. In response, Applicant has amended these claims appropriately.”
Examiner’s response: In light of the amended for claims 1, 9, and 17, the claim objections has been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits: “Here, the claims employ the location of the first electronic device and the location of the second electronic device to determine whether or not to continue the interaction on the second electronic device. Specifically, if it is impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device, the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device. This is textbook integration, as the computer program controls the two electronic devices by allowing or disallowing the interaction from being continued on the second electronic device. Thus, these elements together recite a meaningful way of using the alleged judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In addition, on August 4, 2025, the Deputy Commissioner for Patents issued a memorandum entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101." Notably, the reminders included the following: Examiners are reminded that if it is a "close call" as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.20 A rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility. In order to make a rejection of a claim under any of the statutory bases (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112), unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Memorandum at 5 (emphasis added). Applicant respectfully submits that, when the claims are interpreted properly, this is not a close call, and the claims are directed to statutory subject matter. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to statutory subject matter, and respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner’s response: Examiner has fully considered, but does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. The applicant argues, the amended claim recites integration, how the examiner would like to emphasize the amended claims 1, 9 and 17 as a whole recites manages user’s credentials and the additional element of electronic device serves a tool to apply the abstract idea. Additionally, the applicant asserts the claims are “close call”, but the examiner disagree with this assertion, the updated rejection as shown above indicates the additional elements serves as a tool to apply the abstract idea. See the updated rejection above. Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits: “Mahaffey, 1 0042 (emphasis added). Thus, Mahaffey is addressing the distance between the customer and the POS module, and has nothing to do with the distance between two different electronic devices used by the customer for an interaction. In fact, nothing in Mahaffey suggest considering the customer location of two customer devices; only one transaction is considered, and it is the location of the customer and the location of the POS module, not a first location of the customer using a first electronic device and a second location of the customer when the customer uses a second electronic device, that are considered. Thus, this "inference" is nothing more than hindsight in disguise, based solely on the knowledge gleaned from Applicant's disclosure. This is, of course, improper. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Care must be taken to avoid hind-sight reconstruction by using 'the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way SO as to achieve the result of the claims in suit. quoting Grain Processing Corp. v. American-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted); see also MPEP 2142 (stating that "impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art. "); MPEP 2145 ("[A]ny judgment] on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper") (quoting In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)(emphasis added)). Because of this, this alleged inference is improper, and Mahaffey must be considered for what it discloses. Nevertheless, solely in an effort to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite "applying, by the computer program, a risk rule to the interaction, wherein the risk rule prevents the interaction from continuing on the second electronic device in response to it being impossible for the customer to be physically present on the first electronic device and the second electronic device based on a location of the first electronic device and a location of the second electronic device." Because the proposed combination does not disclose this, it cannot render claim 1 obvious. While of different scopes, independent claims 9 and 17 have been amended to recite similar elements and are allowable for at least these reasons. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and of all claims dependent thereon, be withdrawn.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the “inference” being nothing more than hindsight. The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the inference was based on the applicant’s specification regarding what is considered “impossible travel”. Additionally, in light of applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 9, 17, the examiner has cited Fish reference. The Fish references discloses, the user having to be in close proximity in order to authenticate and continue interaction on the second electronic device. Thus, the combination of Singh, in view of Gillis, in further view of Fish discloses the claim limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17. Thus, the rejection is proper, and has been maintained.
Applicant submits: “Claims 2, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly rendered obvious Singh, Gillis, Mahaffey, and Manchireddy. Without conceding that this proposed combination is proper, Applicant notes that these claims are dependent on one of independent claims 1, 9, or 17, and are allowable for at least the reasons above. See MPEP 2143.03 ("If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious.") (quoting In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be withdrawn.”
Examiner response: Examiner has fully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s argument persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant, the applicant’s arguments are directed to the independent claims 1, 9, 17 are allowable and thus its dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 are allowable. The examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant because as stated in the response above, the independent claims 1, 9, 17 remain rejected. And thus the dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 remain rejected by at least virtue of dependency. Thus, the rejection is proper, and has been maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180349904 A1 DAVE; Pritesh M. et al. PROVISIONING CREDENTIALS ON MULTIPLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES - This application relates to re-provisioning of credentials, such as payment credentials, on a second electronic device from one or more credentials previously provisioned on a first electronic device. The one or more previously provisioned credentials may be stored on an external storage system and may be retrieved by the second electronic device for re-provisioning. The second electronic device may re-provision an instance of the one or more retrieved credentials for use in electronic transactions on the second electronic device using a secure element linked to the second electronic device and information that is unique to the one or more credentials being re-provisioned to the second electronic device.
US 20230376969 A1 Gillis; Trish et al. PROVIDING CUSTOMER SERVICE WITHIN A METAVERSE - Apparatus and methods are provided for supplying customer service within a metaverse. A program may receive a request to authenticate a customer service representative and authenticate the service representative. The program may create a customer service avatar within the metaverse and assign the service avatar to the service representative. The program may interface between the service representative and the service avatar. The service avatar may move proximate to a user's avatar when the user requests assistance. The service representative may provide assistance to the user through the service avatar.
US 10579725 B2 de Mello Brandao; Rafael R. et al. Automated document authoring assistant through cognitive computing - A document editor user interface interacts with a user in receiving content from the user and provides suggestions determined via cognitive computing to the user while the user is authoring a document. A search engine searches for information associated with the content and returns the information. A matching candidate template that matches a style of the document being authored is searched for and may be inferred based on the document being authored. The suggestions may be provided based on definitions of the candidate template. A cognitive component may continuously detect behavior of the user while authoring the document and store information associated with the detected behavior. Additional suggestions may be provided based on the detected behavior.
US 11394741 B1 Ortiz; Efrain Systems and methods for hindering malicious computing actions - The disclosed computer-implemented method for hindering malicious computing actions may include (i) identifying an attempt by an agent to perform an action on a computing resource that is vulnerable to attempted actions performed by unauthorized agents, (ii) requesting from the agent, in response to identifying the attempt to perform the action on the computing resource, a payment to an owner of the computing resource equal to a monetary value assigned to performing the action on the computing resource, (iii) receiving, by the owner of the computing resource, the payment of the monetary value from the agent, and (iv) allowing, in response to receiving the payment of the monetary value from the agent, the attempt by the agent to perform the action on the computing resource. Various other methods, systems, and computer-readable media are also disclosed.
US 20190266999 A1 CHANDRASEKARAN N et al. Personal virtual assistant system, has processing circuitry for generating response that takes into account determined emotional state of user, and training machine learning model based on users response to outputted response - The system (520) has a sensing device for collecting user state information relating to an emotional state of a user from users voice. A memory (512) device comprises instructions, which when executed by a processing circuitry (511). The processing circuitry receives communication from the user that elicits response from the personal virtual assistant system, determines the emotional state of the user using a machine learning model from the user state information collected by the sensing device, generates a response that takes into account the determined emotional state of the user, and trains a machine learning model based on users response to outputted response.
US 20160210600 A1 SOBEK; Michael SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRANSFERRING FUNDS IN REAL TIME - An apparatus is disclosed which includes a processor and non-transient memory operatively connected to the processor. The memory includes instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a server hosting a managed services gateway, an authorized funding amount which is based on user account data associated with the user account; transmit a funds transfer request to the server, where the funds transfer request includes a funding amount less than or equal to the authorized funding amount; transmit a funds-transfer confirmation message to the server which causes the managed services gateway to initiate an internal funds transfer on a bank server associated with the user account. The internal funds transfer comprises a real-time transfer of funds from a managed services account owned by a managed services provider to a consumer account associated with the user maintained with the same bank.
US 20200342348 A1 Kenny; Aidan et al. AUTOMATED PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS AND MODIFICATION OF USER INTERACTION FEATURES USING MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION MODELS - Methods and apparatuses are described for automated predictive analysis of user interactions to determine a modification based upon competing classification models. A server computing device receives first encoded text for prior user interactions and trains a plurality of classification models using the first text. The server determines a prediction cost for each of the models based upon the training. The server receives second encoded text for a current user interaction and executes the trained models using the second text to generate a prediction vector for each model that maximizes user engagement. The server selects one of the models based upon the prediction vectors, identifies a communication feature of the model, generates a user interaction modification, and transmits the user interaction modification to a client computing device.
US 20180068309 A1 Mahaffey; Kevin Patrick et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHORIZING PAYMENT TRANSACTION BASED ON DEVICE LOCATIONS - A method for authorizing a mobile payment transaction is provided that is based on device locations. The method includes receiving, by a server, a request from a point of sale (POS) device to authorize a payment transaction involving a payment facilitating device. In an embodiment, the request includes payment information of the payment transaction and location information of the POS device. When the request is received, an authorizing client device for the payment transaction is identified based on the payment information from the payment facilitating device. The request to authorize the payment transaction is granted when it is determined that the authorizing client device is located within a predetermined distance from the POS device.
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 MD S HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/M.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights