DETAILED ACTION
This is Non-Final Office Action issued in response to the Appeal Brief filed on January 30, 2026, which appealed the Final Office Action mailed on September 5, 2025. The application has been withdrawn from appeal and from the Final Office Action mailed on September 5, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 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: Judicial Exception Recited?
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: integrated into a practical application?
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: 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 therefor 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.
La Placa (US 20170372429 A1) discloses virtual assistant platform with deep analytics, embedded and adaptive best practices expertise, and proactive interaction.
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
March 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights