DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed on June 30, 2026. Claims 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitation “automatically select the VA to handle the task based on factors such as user preferences, insights gained from user's interaction patterns and user feedback, and collaborative filtering of aggregated user behavior data. Thus, the claims do integrate at least practical applications” (response 6/30/2026, pages 1-2). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitations “automatically select the VA to handle the task query” amount to abstract idea and fail to integrate it into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B because “automatically select one of the Vas…having a highest average..” is deemed conventional logical sorting or selection logic. Taking the claims as a whole, the selecting step within a database queries constitutes routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Further, applicant argues that the “IVAS service perform an intent classification to identify the domain and/or task to which the query belongs…using various natural language processing (NLP) techniques that solve the technical problem and recited improvement in the operation of multiple competing machine system VAs” (response 6/30/2026, pages 2-3). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely reciting an “intent classifier machine learning model trained to bin the query…” uses well-known machine learning techniques (classification, supervised training) that are conventional computing tools. Additionally, “collaborative selector…” reflects standard collaborative filtering techniques used for database lookups and query processing, and “ranking based on an average of customer feedback…” constitutes conventional computing averages. Therefore, these elements do not amount to significant more than an abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejection under §101 is maintained.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receive a query from a user device; detect a domain and/or task corresponding to the query using an intent classifier machine-learning model trained to bin the query by domain and/or task; identify a set of similar queries to the detected domain and/or task of the query using a collaborative selector, the set of similar queries also being categorized to the detected domain and/or task; rank the plurality of virtual assistants (VAs) based on an average of customer feedback received from execution of the similar queries, the customer feedback including ratings of responses to the similar queries; automatically select one of the VAs for use in responding to the query as being the one having a highest average of the customer feedback to use to respond to the query; and reply to the query using the selected response generated by the one of the plurality of VAs. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes, specifically, organizing human activity. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1 and 3-20 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-10, claim 11-16 a method or a process and claims 17-20 a non-transitory computer-readable medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
The claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving a query from a user device; classifying a query into a domain or task using a machine-learning classifier (e.g., detect a domain and/or task corresponding to the query using an intent classifier machine-learning model trained to bin the query by domain and/or task….), identifying similar queries using a collaborative selector (e.g., identify a set of similar queries corresponding to the detected domain and/or task of the query…), ranking virtual assistants based on customer feedback, selecting the highest ranked assistant, and using the selected assistant to respond (e.g., reply to the query using the selected response generated by the one of the plurality of VAs). These operations can be characterized as abstract idea “organizing Human Activity, “specifically falling within the enumerated sub-grouping of relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
The claim 1 further recites additional elements including an “intelligent virtual assistant selection (IVAS) service” executed by hardware devices, user device, machine-learning model and virtual assistants (VAs).” These elements are described at a high level of generality and appear to be used merely as tools to implement the decision-making process, without providing any improvement to computer functionality, machine-learning architecture, or network operations. Instead, the elements are described in purely functional terms, such as detecting a query using an intent classifier, identifying similar queries, ranking VAs, and selecting a VA.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
The claim recites potential additional elements, such as machine-learning classifier, collaborative selector, hardware devices and IVAS service. However, these elements are described as conventional AI/ML tools that are well-understood, routine and conventional and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is directed to selecting a virtual assistant to respond to a query based on classification of the query, identification of similar queries, and ranking assistants using customer feedback, which constitutes an abstract idea (e.g., organizing human activity and data analysis). The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements (e.g., hardware devices, machine learning model, and IVAS service) merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology. Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, nor does it recite an inventive concept. The claim does not recite any specific technological improvement, such as a new database architecture or a concrete improvement to computer performance. There is nothing in the claim that improves computer performance, solves a specific technical problem in networking or storage, or introduces a novel data structure or algorithm. Instead, the claim amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and, therefore, fails to integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A or to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. Accordingly, these recitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites “initialize operation of the IVAS service in an explicit mode in which user preferences are utilized to select the one of the plurality of VAs to use to respond to the query; collect entries in a data log” abstract idea under step 2A(i) and “train a machine-learning (ML) model using the data log to infer updates to the user preferences and update the user preferences for selection” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4-5 recite “exclude any of the VAs from consideration that have not received at least a minimum quantity of user feedback and at least a minimum average rating score from the customer feedback” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites “ratings of responses to the similar queries” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites “responsive to receiving user feedback that the selected response is not desired; select a second of the plurality of VAs having a second highest average of the customer feedback for use in responding to the query; identify a second selected response as the one of the responses from the second selected VA; and send the second selected response to the user device” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 8 recites “send the query to each of the plurality of VAs; receive responses from each of the plurality of VAs; and identify the selected response as the response from the selected one of the VAs” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 9-10 recite “wherein the user device is a vehicle or a mobile phone” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 and 17 are rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1. Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are similar analysis of claims 2-10 and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element in claims 12-16 and 18-20 represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group of abstract ideas. Each additional step is considered an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (organizing human activity step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-20 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the abstract idea issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 20230245651 A1) discloses enabling user-centered and contextually relevant interaction.
Szabo (US 20100332583 A1) discloses database access system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights