DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and response filed on 28 January 2026, and the drawings submitted on 16 October 2025. As of the date of this communication no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 2-10, 12-18 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection to the drawings, the Applicant has successfully amended the drawings, and the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of claims 1-19 regarding invocation of 35 USC 112(f), the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded. However, note that claims 1-11 remain rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and claims 1-19 under 35 USC 112(b) for different reasons.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of claims 11 and 19 regarding invocation of 35 USC 112(f), the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-19 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The pending claims are directed to a specific system and method for supervising agent-end user communications, including inter alia, a control module, authorization module, consolidated conversation view, whisper (back-channel) communication, and cloud-based data management. In combination and as will be detailed hereinbelow, these elements provide a concrete technical and functional improvement to the functioning of computer-based chat infrastructure. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of 101” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The claims represent implementation of a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities, which includes the whisper functionally to facilitate communication between authorized agents), with high level additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module); adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting / outputting data, data storage, data gathering / receiving data) with general computer components (data management module, data / cloud storage, data input on the processor); and generally linking use to a technology / field of use (Internet), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. The claims and additional elements do not improve a computer outside of a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s characterization of the claims as directed to ‘managing human communication’ or ‘mental processes’. This characterization overlooks the specific technical improvements recited in the claims and supported by the specification” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The claims are directed to a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, because the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities. The limitations of overseeing of ongoing chat sessions in real-time; verifying membership; authorizing agents; permitting and enabling agents or authorized agents to conduct active supervision; enabling agents / end user to view and browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account; facilitating communication between authorized agents involved in a chat sessions; facilitating analysis of chat session data; optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data; tagging the at least one agent in the comments; to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only to the authorized agents; to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication are certain methods of organizing human activities. These limitations are certain methods of organizing human activities because the activities represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication; social activities includes communication between agents…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication; teaching includes transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…; and following rules or instructions includes overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible throughout the Remarks because “controlled takeover of a chat session” and “whereby the system detects inactivity in real time” (Remarks pg. 12), “controlled agent takeover” and “controlled takeover upon validation of agent inactivity and limited to agents belonging to a defined authorization set, thereby altering the actual routing of messages” (Remarks pg. 13), “In addition, the authorization module verifies membership in a defined authorization set prior to enabling supervisory takeover” (Remarks pg. 14), “The role-based takeover mechanism alters the routing of messages in real time based on the validation of agent activity and the permissions system” and “What is more, the role-based overseeing mechanism alters the routing of messages in real time based on validation of agent activity and authorization (para [0023]-[0024], Fig 2). The specification describes how the control module monitors agent activity and initiates takeover by a second agent only after the authorization module confirms membership in the appropriate authorization set” (Remarks pg. 15-16), “enabling controlled role-based takeover” (Remarks pg. 16). Examiner disagrees. None of the controlled takeover features, detected inactivity features, and routing messages from one agent to a second agent features argued that are allegedly present in the specification are represented in the claims, and as such have no impact regarding the eligibility of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The claimed subject matter requires a particular arrangement of modules and communication channels that addresses a problem rooted in computer technology: namely how to provide a parallel supervisor-only channel (whisper)… without leakage of supervisor content into the customer-facing stream, while preserving real-time authorization and data consistency across multiple chat providers” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The claims are not rooted in a computer technology. The claims represent certain methods of organizing human activities (i.e. managing personal behavior and interactions between people), and the limitations identified as part of the judicial exception (overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication) each represent activities that could otherwise be performed outside of computer technology (e.g. a manager oversees interactions between employees and customers, a manager verifies whether an employee is working, a manager authorizes an employee to work with a customer, a manager actively supervises / views / browses conversations between employees and customers, a manager quietly speaks guidance / instructions / insights to an employee either immediately or at a later time). The computer components are generic / general purpose computer components (i.e. processors, software) each recited at a high level and represent ‘applying’ the judicial exception in a computer environment, which is not a practical application or significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The claimed subject matter recites a technical architecture that fundamentally improves the way live chat systems operate. Specifically it requires: (i) a consolidated conversation view that unifies multiple parallel sessions within an account into a single supervisory interface, ensuring data consistency and supervisory visibility across providers… (iii) server-side orchestration and API integration with multiple chat providers which enables the supervisory functions, including whisper channels… (iv) cloud based state and history management with real-time updates to agent interfaces ensuring that all participants view consistent and synchronized conversation data regardless of platform or location… These features represent a concrete improvement in the functioning of computer-mediated chat infrastructure, not the mere automation of abstract human communication (Remarks pg. 12-13). Examiner disagrees. None of the additional elements associated with these features represent a technical improvement. First, the additional elements associated with the consolidated conversation view (e.g. a consolidated view module comprising executable instructions to generate, on a display of an agent device a view) only represents high-level extra-solution activity of transmitting data / outputting data using a general purpose computer and computer component as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to output data), which is not a practical application or significantly more; and represent computer activities that the courts have determined are routine, well-understood, conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Also note that the courts in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir 2015) stated “invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications”. Second, the additional elements associated with the API and chat providers (claims 5 and 15), only represent high level extra-solution activity of transmitting data; using computers / computer components as tools in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to send / receive / transmit data), which is not a practical application or significantly more; and represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Third, the additional elements associated with using cloud based storage only represent high level extra-solution activity of data storage, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technical environment (i.e. Internet) which does not provide a practical application or significantly more; and represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0026-27] describing the additional element of utilizing cloud-based storage at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note that based on the claim language only requiring the data management module arranged on at least one of data storage and cloud storage, cloud storage is not required in the claims. Hence, the additional elements associated with these features are more representative of implementing a judicial exception using generic / general purpose computers, adding high level extra-solution activities using computers in their ordinary capacity, and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a technology without particular technical detail that do not justify a practical application or significantly more, thus not providing a technical improvement or an improvement to technology. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in view of Enfish (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, note that the court cited that the claims in Enfish were contained to the plain focus on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity (see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.). This is in contrast to the Applicant’s claims in which a computer is used as a tool to implement certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g. oversee ongoing chat sessions, verifying membership, conducting active supervision, browsing ongoing chat interactions, communicating between agents, facilitating analysis / evaluation / optimization of supervisory activities, transmitting guidance / instructions / insights only for authorized agents), i.e. an ‘other task’ for which a computer is used, per Enfish. Second, since the claims at best are more directed towards improving a business process (i.e. the judicial exception) in association with a computer, rather than improving computers themselves, the claims are not eligible in view of the claims of Enfish. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in view of DDR Holdings vs. Hotels.com and are “rooted in computer technology because it addresses a problem arising uniquely in networked chat systems, namely, parallel hidden channels… multi-provider consistency” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, the technology elements are removed (i.e. a control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module), the Applicant’s claims still represent certain methods of organizing human activities in Step 2A Prong One. Even though the judicial exception limitations recite use of a computer, these limitations could otherwise be performed by a person / people. This is no more than using the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or presenting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Second, Applicant claims are directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how can an agent assist another user (or agent) involved in a communication without involvement another party), which is not a technical problem because this problem is tied to technology. As such, the claims are not rooted in technology like the claims in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com and do not present significantly more than a judicial exception / abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible providing a practical application because “the claims recite: a particular machine comprising a control module, authorization module, consolidated conversation view, whisper module, data management module, and processor-based data interface; specific data flows wherein whisper messages are rendered only in the agent interface and expressly blocked from transmission to the end-user stream; and network orchestration via API-based integration with multiple chat providers and cloud-state synchronization for real-time consistency” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, the claimed control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, and data management module represent implementing the judicial exception on a generic / general purpose computers with general computer components (including software), which claimed at this high level of detail is not a particular machine that is a practical application. Second, while communication / transmission in the limitations “a communication module comprising executable instructions executed by a processor and configured to enable a whisper functionality to facilitate communication between authorized agents involved in chat sessions” and wherein whisper functionality is configured to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only for the authorized agents are identified as part of the judicial exception, these activities are claimed at such a high level of detail they also represents the extra-solution activity of transmitting data using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to send data, to receive data which without particular technical details is not a practical application. Third, the (claims 5 and 15) API features and cloud features (e.g. data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage represent high level extra-solution activities of transmitting data and data storage and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (Internet), which without particular technical details does not provide a practical application. Also note that based on the claim language only requiring the data management module arranged on at least one of data storage and cloud storage, cloud storage is not required in the claims. Hence, the recited additional elements associated with these argued features do not provide a practical application. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that these disclosures reflect concrete technical improvements to chat system architecture. The whisper channel is not an abstract ‘note-passing’ concept but a software-implemented routing path with enforced blocking logic; the control and authorization modules are not high-level ideas but specific programmed components operating on a processor; and the data management system is a cloud-integrated orchestration layer that unifies disparate providers” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. First, the judicial exception steps of overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication, each represent activities that could otherwise be performed outside of computer technology (e.g. a manager oversees interactions between employees and customers, a manager verifies whether an employee is working, a manager authorizes an employee to work with a customer, a manager actively supervises / views / browses conversations between employees and customers, a manager analyzes / evaluates / and optimizes their supervisory activities, a manager quietly speaks guidance / instructions / insights to an employee either immediately or at a later time). Second, the control and authorization modules at this high level of recitation represent an ‘apply it’ implementation of a judicial exception on a generic computer (e.g. processor) and general computer component (i.e. software), which is not a practical application or a technical improvement to architecture. Second, the claimed cloud storage at best is only high level extra-solution data storage and generally linking the judicial exception to a technology (i.e. Internet), and based on the claim language only requiring the data management module arranged on at least one of data storage and cloud storage, cloud storage is not required in the claims. So, the recitation of cloud storage in the claims does not provide a technical improvement to the architecture. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “The parallel whisper channel is enforced both at the user interface and server side to guarantee that supervisor commends never appear in the end-user chat stream” and “the parallel whisper channel is enforced both at the user interface and the server side to guarantee that supervisor commends never appear in the end-user chat stream” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. First, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a server side enforcement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, the claimed feature to “facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only for the authorized agents”, while part of the judicial exception, is also claimed at such a high level of detail that it also represents extra-solution data transmission and is not significantly more; and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “The consolidated conversation view dynamically limits access based on defined authorization sets” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. These features are present in dependent claim 3. However, the claimed steps of verifying an assignment set and granting access to the scope of chat sessions based on the assignment are part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One (managing personal behavior or interactions between people) and are not additional elements evaluated whether they are significantly more in Step 2B. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “The API and cloud-based architecture ensure interoperability across multiple chat providers while maintaining consistent session state” (Remarks pg. 15-16) and “Additionally to the above, the API cloud-based architecture ensures interoperability across multiple chat providers while maintaining consistent session state (para. [0026]-[[0027], Fig 4). The specification explains that the data management module integrates chat sessions from heterogeneous providers into a common state management layer, with synchronized updates across agent’ interfaces. This amounts to more than routine use of APIs, but rather a coordinated orchestration layer that preserves real-time consistency” (Remarks pg. 16). Examiner disagrees. The (claims 5 and 15) API features and cloud features (e.g. data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage represent high level extra-solution activities of transmitting data and data storage claimed at a high level of detail and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (Internet), which without particular technical details does not provide significantly more. The API without any claimed technical details regarding the API (e.g. an API configured to communicate with the data management module over the network; and wherein the API is configured to communicate with the chat provider) represents using a general computer components performing in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to send / receive / transmit data) which is not significantly more. The use of an API for communicating as claimed between computers over a network is well known. See the Wikipedia ‘API’ entry <https://web.archive.org/web/20220202085504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API> (Wayback Machine dated 2 February 2022) that an API is a connection between computers or between computer programs, and it is known to have web APIs allow the combination of multiple APIs into new applications as mashups (Wikipedia ‘API’ ¶1, ¶ beginning ‘Web APIs’). Next, regarding the cloud storage, note that based on the claim language only requiring the data management module arranged on at least one of data storage and cloud storage, cloud storage is not required in the claims. Regardless, cloud storage as recited at this level of detail only represents a high level general linkage to a technology (i.e. Internet), and does not provide significantly more. Hence, the recited additional elements associated with these argued features is not significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “even under Step 2B, the pending claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specification makes it clear that the claimed subject matter is implemented through specific computer-architectural features, not generic computing functions and the like” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. The additional elements do not provide significantly more. The recited control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module represent generic computers / general computer components (i.e. software) to implement the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The computer components in the extra-solution activities (e.g. consolidated view module, display, data management module, data / cloud storage, processor) also represent generic computers / general computer components (i.e. software) using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data, to receive data, to transmit data) which is not significantly more. Hence, the architecture features claimed at this high level of detail are no more than using computers to implement a judicial exception and using computers as a tool, which is not significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Office Action does not supply any evidence establishing that this specific combination of features is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (Remarks pg. 16). Examiner disagrees. First, individually the additional elements are well-understood / routine / conventional. With respect to the generating a view, this generating step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data / transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023] describing the additional element of the consolidated view module providing agents a comprehensive view of ongoing chat interactions within a predefined account to access and navigate chat sessions at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding the storing / organizing, these storing / organizing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0035] describing the additional element of arranging data records in hierarchal or relational structures at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0026-27] describing the additional element of utilizing cloud-based storage at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Regarding the enabling commends / text content steps, the enabling comments / text content steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0024], ¶[0026] describing the additional element of using the data input to include a comment or feedback at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. Note that the combination of limitations and additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement. Hence, additional elements were considered both individually and in combination regarding Step 2B for whether additional element activities were routine / well-understood / conventional. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-19 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper because “Wampler para [0042] demonstrates a design principle that is incompatible with the claimed architecture: in Wampler, all live agent messages are routed to and displayed in the customer chat. This is the opposite of the claimed whisper channel, which is architected to ensure that supervisory communications are never transmitted to nor displayed in the end-user chat stream” (Remarks pg. 18). Examiner disagrees. Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0030], ¶[0041-42] details the AI assisted agent creates proposed response options sent to the live agent that are only visible to the live agent and not the user / customer unless the agent chooses to then manually send them. See ¶[0030] “(3) a mixed mode where the AI system 122 provides proposed responses to the live agent, but the live agent is the one that controls the transmission of the chat message to the customer”. See ¶[0041] “the AI system 122 is enabled to generated proposed messages but is disabled from automatically sending a response to the customer, then the AI system 122 will present the one or more responses generated in step 208 to the live agent in step 220 as the message is routed to the live agent in step 216”. See ¶[0042] “the live agent can send the message either by pressing the ‘Enter’ key on a keyboard or clicking on a ‘Send’ button. Hence, not all agent messages are routed and displayed to the customer from the AI agent to the live agent (i.e. whisper functionality). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper because “Wampler fails to disclose the authorization module. In particular, Wampler does not teach a module that verifies, in real time, whether a second agent is authorized to assume control before enabling a takeover” (Remarks pg. 18). Examiner disagrees. First, Wampler teaches the authorization module as claimed in claim 1. The limitation of “an authorization module comprising executable instructions executed by a processor to verify membership and configured to enable authorized agents to conduct active supervision” is taught by Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0045], ¶[0048] that details chat sessions are assigned to a live agent where the chat sessions are either active between the user and the live agent or active with the user and the AI system and the agent monitors the interaction between the user and the AI; the system determines which live agents are currently available with the ‘Who’s Online’ button (i.e. verifying membership); and functions are executed by a computer system with a processor. Second, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., whether a second agent is authorized to assume control before enabling a takeover) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Wampler teaches the claimed authorization module as claimed. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper because “Wampler fails to disclose the control module with activity detection. Wampler discloses routing rules but not a mechanism for detecting agent inactivity and conditionally triggering takeover” (Remarks pg. 19). Examiner disagrees. First, Wampler teaches the control module as claimed in claim 1. The limitation of “a control module comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executed by a processor and configured to oversee ongoing chat sessions in real-time” is taught by Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0042-43], ¶[0048] details an agent monitoring chat interaction between the customer / user and an AI system, viewing message interactions by the source party with the timestamps as they are sent in a live agent display; and functions are executed by a computer system with a processor. Second, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a mechanism for detecting agent inactivity and conditionally triggering takeover) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Wampler teaches the claimed control module as claimed. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper regarding Beslic because “In Beslic, the disclose is directed to collaboration platforms that emphasize transparency and shared visibility across team members… This approach teaches away from the claimed subject matter. The invention requires a whisper (back-channel) communication channel that is architected precisely to prevent customer-facing disclosure of supervisor-to-agent communications” (Remarks pg. 19-20). Examiner disagrees. First, Beslic is not relied upon to teach the whisper communication channel. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Beslic is relied upon to teach “a data management module configured to store and organize chat session data, facilitate subsequent analysis, evaluation, and optimization of supervisory activities” because it details storing chat content of the chat channel and archiving it in a chat database with an identifier of the business or the chat host and the user, along with storing chat metadata; and also details running a computerized analysis of the chat database to identify chat performance measurements for any business or chat host during a specified period of time (i.e. analysis, evaluation, optimization of supervisory activities), using this information for managing seats (i.e. agents) (Beslic ¶[0012], ¶[0129], ¶[0135-136]). Second, Applicant's argues that the Beslic reference teaches away. Examiner notes "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the Applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966))." Since Beslic does not explicitly state claimed features of the Applicant’s invention are discouraged and unlikely to be productive, Beslic does not "teach away" from the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper regarding Beslic because “Furthermore, Beslic, as well as Wampler, is silent on authorization verification and conditional takeover mechanisms” (Remarks pg. 20). Examiner disagrees. First, Beslic is not relied upon to teach the authorization module. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., conditional takeover mechanisms) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper regarding Yokoi because “Yokoi fails to disclose the whisper channel or hidden communication. Yokoi’s system presupposes that communications (emails, instant messages, etc.) are tagged and stored for broader visibility and eventual review. It expressly facilitates searching and sharing of feedback across multiple periods… This stands in direct contrast to the claimed whisper channel, which is architected to enforce invisibility to the end user and remain strictly confined to the supervisor-agent interface during a live conversation” (Remarks pg. 21). Examiner disagrees. Yokoi is relied upon to teach “whisper functionality is further configured to be available for asynchronous communication” in Fig 6, ¶[0003], ¶[0026], ¶[0037], ¶[0042], ¶[0066], claim 1 first by obtaining and storing electronic messages (e.g. Internet Relay Chat (IRC) messages) that have been tagged in association with a user (i.e. live agent) and another party as a source of feedback, the manager searches for messages tagged as feedback for the user to identify a feedback pool and determine areas for improvement; and the manager sends the user / agent a performance review with collected feedback (e.g. criticism / praise / instruction messages, i.e. whisper functionality) through a future performance review document (i.e. asynchronous communication). This functionality cited are representative of asynchronous whisper functionality between a live agent and a manager regarding the performance review thus teaching the limitation. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper regarding Yokoi because “Yokoi fails to disclose real-time supervisory takeover… Instead Yokoi deals exclusively with asynchronous performance feedback gathered for evaluation cycles. The Examiner’s reliance on Yokoi to suggest Applicant’s real-time authorization-controlled takeover mechanism is misplaced” (Remarks pg. 21). Examiner disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., detecting agent inactivity and to initiate real time authorization controlled takeover mechanisms) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection is improper regarding Yokoi because “What is more, Yokoi’s disclosure encourages designing systems where feedback is systematically captured, pooled, and made broadly available for retrospective analysis and performance management ([0042] – [0048]). This approach is directed towards maximizing access and reuse of messages as feedback is the opposite of Applicant’s claimed subject matter, which requires a segregated communication path (the whisper channel) specifically designed never to be exposed outside the supervisor-agent interface during a live session. A person of ordinary skill, starting from Wampler, would be led by Yokoi toward increasing transparency and shared availability of messages, not toward creating hidden, technically enforced supervisory back channels” (Remarks pg. 21-22). Examiner disagrees. First, Yokoi sends performance review documents between a manager and a user with feedback that is asynchronous and sourced from messages, and analogous to the claimed whisper functionality. There is also no exposure of the performance review documents to an outside customer. Second, Yokoi does not ‘teach away’ from Wampler. Examiner notes that Yokoi merely illustrates a different way of behaving regarding delivering feedback than in the Wampler. However, there is nothing specified in Wampler or Yokoi that would have deterred or warned one of ordinary skill in the art from pursuing modifications, and there is nothing specified in Wampler / Yokoi that indicates that this particular modification that Yokoi is relied upon (e.g. whisper functionality available for asynchronous communication) will increase in a greater likelihood of failure. See MPEP 2143(A) example 8: DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009); MPEP 2123(II) furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, Wampler / Yokoi does not ‘teach away' from this modification. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection (of claims 9) is improper regarding Gao because “The thrust of Gao is toward open availability and sharing of data across systems, which teaches away from Applicant’s invention that requires technical segregation and enforced invisibility of supervisory communications” (Remarks pg. 22). Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 (1966))." Since Gao does not state that the modification of “enable structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models” is discouraged and unlikely to be productive, Gao does not "teach away" from the Applicant’s claimed invention or Wampler. This argument is not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 16 October 2025 have been acknowledged by the Office, and resolve the outstanding objection to the drawings.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
authorization module in claims 1-19.
consolidated view module in claims 1-19.
communication module in claims 1-19.
whisper functionality in claims 1-19.
data management module in claims 1-19.
data tagging mechanism in claims 11 and 19.
data labeling module in claims 11 and 19.
data organization component in claims 11 and 19.
data extraction tool in claims 11 and 19.
management module in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a consolidated view module comprising executable instructions to generate, on a display of an agent device a view and enable the end user to browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account”. However the italicized portion of this limitations regarding of the consolidated view module enabling the end user to browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account is not supported in the written specification. The closest support is provided in the Applicant’s originally filed specification ¶[0023]:
[0023] The system of the disclosed invention integrates a control module (l02) responsible for overseeing ongoing chat sessions in real-time. This module facilitates the active monitoring and management of chat interactions within digital communication platforms. In conjunction with the control module, the system incorporates an authorization module. This module operates with the authorization module (103) that grants specific privileges to authorized agents, enabling them to engage in active supervision. By active supervision it is understood that the agent can see the communication module (103) to see chat messages exchanged between participants, view the consolidated view of all conversations he is authorized to access (105), suggest or give hints to the agent involved in the chat thread in the way not visible to the end user (106) via input configured on the agent's processor (107). Authorized agents can participate in chat sessions within the scope of their designated roles. A critical component of the system is the consolidated view module (105). This module is configured to provide authorized agents with a comprehensive view of ongoing chat interactions within a predefined account. Through this module, agents gain the ability to access and navigate chat sessions, ensuring efficient oversight (701) and streamlined monitoring. Wherein the oversight means ability to tart supervision of the chat communication (701), overtake the chat (601) where the agent can exclude previously participating agents and engage in the communication instead of them, and stop supervision whenever it is needed (602). Furthermore, the listing of agents with the access to a particular set of chat threads enable to request a list of agents from the database (303), view list of agents based on data saved in the database (304), browse the list of agents (305) and then grant access based on the previously defined elements (305)
Applicant specification ¶[0023] details that the consolidated view module is for authorized agents to browse chat interactions within a predefined account. The Specification does not state that the consolidated view module is for end users to browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account. Hence, the Specification does not provide support for this limitation. Therefore, claim 1 (and the dependent claims 2-11) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the text content" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the dependent claims 2-11. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as introducing a text content.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the dependent claims 2-11. Note that there are three instances of “a processor” recited prior to line 11 (claim 1 line 4, line 6, line 11), hence it is unclear which processor this is referring to. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to the first processor (claim 1 line 4).
Claim 2:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “enchanted” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “exchanged”, while the accepted meaning is “placed under or as if under a magic spell; made to feel delightfully pleased or charmed.” The term and the claims are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The specification provides no details regarding enchanting or messages enchanted between at least two users. For the purpose of examination, ‘enchanted’ will be interpreted as ‘exchanged’, since it is possible that the term ‘exchanged’ was auto-corrected to the word ‘enchanted’.
Claim 5:
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the network" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as introducing a network.
Claim 6:
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 1 introduces three instances of a processor (lines 4, 6, and 11), and then claim 6 introduces a processor in claim 6 line 2, and the claim language must clearly indicate which processor this is referring to. For the purpose of examination, this processor in claim 6 line 7 will be interpreted as referring to the processor of claim 6 line 2.
Claims 12-19:
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the dependent claims 13-19. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as introducing a processor.
Claim 13:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “enchanted” in claim 13 is used by the claim to mean “exchanged”, while the accepted meaning is “placed under or as if under a magic spell; made to feel delightfully pleased or charmed.” The term and the claims are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The specification provides no details regarding enchanting or messages enchanted between at least two users. For the purpose of examination, ‘enchanted’ will be interpreted as ‘exchanged’, since it is possible that the term ‘exchanged’ was auto-corrected to the word ‘enchanted’.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the network" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as introducing a network.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 12 line 13 first introduces a processor, and then claim 16 introduces a processor in claim 16 line 3, and the claim language must clearly indicate which processor this is referring to. For the purpose of examination, this processor in claim 16 line 8 will be interpreted as referring to the processor of claim 16 line 3.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 recite a system; and claims 12-19 recite a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-19 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: to oversee ongoing chat sessions in real-time; to verify membership and to enable authorized agents to conduct active supervision; to enable the end user to browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account; to facilitate communication between authorized agents involved in chat sessions, to… facilitate subsequent analysis, evaluation, and optimization of supervisory activities; and to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only for the authorized agents; to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication. Independent claim 12 recites: overseeing of ongoing chat sessions in real-time; authorizing agents; permitting and enabling agents or authorized agents to conduct active supervision; enabling agents to view and browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account; facilitating communication between authorized agents involved in a chat sessions; facilitating analysis of chat session data; optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data; tagging the at least one agent in the comments; to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only to the authorized agents; to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication;
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities. First, the activities of overseeing of ongoing chat sessions in real-time; verifying membership; authorizing agents; permitting and enabling agents or authorized agents to conduct active supervision; enabling agents / end user to view and browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account; facilitating communication between authorized agents involved in a chat sessions; facilitating analysis of chat session data; optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data; tagging the at least one agent in the comments; to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only to the authorized agents; to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication; social activities includes communication between agents…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication; teaching includes transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…; and following rules or instructions includes overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights. The presence of generic / general computer components such as a control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module do not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-19 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 1) generating a view and its steps of a consolidated view module comprising executable instructions to generate, on a display of an agent device a view are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data for subsequent browsing), and amount to mere outputting data / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). The consolidated view module and display (general computer hardware / software, general computer component) are only being used as a tool in the generating, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding generating a view more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (outputting data / information). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of storing / organizing and its steps of a data management module configured to store and organize chat session data; storing and organizing chat session data with a data management module; wherein the data management module is arranged on at least one of data storage and cloud storage are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent analysis), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). The recitation of cloud storage does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Internet), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the data management module, data / cloud storage (a general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the storing / organizing data, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing / organizing more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (recoding data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of enabling comments / text content and its limitations of enabling comments with text with use of a data input arranged on the processor; a data input arranged on the processor and configured to enable the text content; are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / receiving content / comments), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the data input on the processor (general computer component, generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the enabling comments / text content, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding enabling comments / text content more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (receiving text inputs). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of communication / transmission (e.g. a communication module configured to enable a whisper functionality to facilitate communication between authorized agents involved in chat sessions; wherein whisper functionality is configured to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only for the authorized agents; wherein whisper functionality is further configured to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication; facilitating communication between authorized agents involved in a chat sessions with a communication module) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data to/between agents), and also amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the communication module and whisper functionality (general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the communication / transmission, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding communication or transmission more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. to transmit data / information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting / outputting data, data storage, data gathering / receiving data) with general computer components (data management module, data / cloud storage, data input on the processor); and generally linking use to a technology / field of use (Internet). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a control module, non-transitory computer-readable medium, authorization module, processor, display, consolidated view module, communication module, whisper functionality, data management module to perform overseeing ongoing chat sessions…, verifying membership, authorizing agents…, conducting active supervision…, viewing and browsing ongoing chat interactions…, communication between agents…, analysis of chat session data…, optimizing supervisory activities…, tagging at least one agent…, transmission of guidance / instructions / insights…, …real time / asynchronous communication amount to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers / general computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 1) generating a view are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data for subsequent browsing), and amount to mere outputting data / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. consolidated view module, display) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computers and computer components as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, this generating step is also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data / transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023] describing the additional element of the consolidated view module providing agents a comprehensive view of ongoing chat interactions within a predefined account to access and navigate chat sessions at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing / organizing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent analysis), and amount to mere electronic record keeping / storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. data management module, data / cloud storage) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of cloud storage does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. Internet), and as such does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these storing / organizing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0035] describing the additional element of arranging data records in hierarchal or relational structures at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0026-27] describing the additional element of utilizing cloud-based storage at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the enabling comments / text content are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / receiving content / comments), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. data input on the processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these enabling comments / text content steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0024], ¶[0026] describing the additional element of using the data input to include a comment or feedback at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the communication / transmission are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data to/between agents), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. communication module, whisper functionality) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these communication / transmission steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data storage / data gathering. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how can an agent assist another user (or agent) involved in a communication), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, Internet), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1 and 12, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-11, 13-19. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: First, the limitation wherein the communication threads comprise both synchronous and asynchronous messages enchanted between at least two users; and wherein the communication threads are configured to be exchanged between at least one user and a chatbot merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. The recitation of the chatbot is another computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation to store a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality is an additional element, representing high level extra-solution data storage, with the control module using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Furthermore, storing here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 14: First, the limitations to view the list of agents and assignment to the authorization set; browse the list of agents; verify an assignment to the authorization set on demand; adjust the assignment to authorization set; grant access to the scope of chat sessions based on the assignment to an authorization set; and wherein authorization set comprises a scope of chat sessions that the at least one agent can access are further directed to certain methods of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior and interactions between people) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the authorization module is another computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Second, the limitation to store a list of agents and assignment to an authorization set is an additional element that is not a practical application or significantly more, representing high level extra-solution data storage, with the authorization module using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Furthermore, storing here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: The limitations wherein the consolidated view module is configured to display all available chat sessions that the at least one agent can access and to adjust the list of the available chat sessions based on the communication with the authorization module is further directed to certain methods of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior and interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the consolidated view module (and authorization module) are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 15: The limitations wherein the communication module further comprises: an API configured to communicate with the data management module over the network; and wherein the API is configured to communicate with the chat provider; and wherein the chat provider comprises an external service provider configured to deliver a communication channel configured to enable the chat sessions is an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The activities to communicate, deliver a communication channel are recited at a high level of detail and represent extra-solution transmitting data. The communication module, API, data management module / management module, chat provider, and external service provider represent using computers / computer components as tools in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to send / receive / transmit data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, these activities of communicating / delivering communication are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Also, see the Wikipedia ‘API’ entry <https://web.archive.org/web/20220202085504/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API> (Wayback Machine dated 2 February 2022) detailing it is known to have web APIs allow the combination of multiple APIs into new applications as mashups (Wikipedia ‘API’ ¶1, ¶ beginning ‘Web APIs’). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 16: The limitations wherein the data management module further comprises: a processor configured to execute data management operations; a memory storage for storing data records; input interfaces configured to transmit data records; output interfaces configured to receive and transmit data records; a data management algorithm configured to be stored in the memory storage and to operate on the processor; and wherein the data records comprise chat sessions, list of agents and assignment to an authorization set are additional elements that are not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The activities of executing data management, storing data, transmitting data, receiving and transmitting data, and storing are all claimed at a high level of detail and represent the extra-solution activities of data gathering, data storage / record keeping, transmitting data. The recitation of a data management module, processor, memory represent using a computer / computer component as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to store / receive / transmit data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Note that there are no particular technical steps claims in the data management algorithm. The executing / storing / transmitting / receiving steps here are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 17: The limitations wherein the whisper functionality is further configured to: enable commenting on a chat session of at least one agent; enable insertion of feedback on a message from the chat session of at least one agent; enable insertion feedback on a group of messages from the chat session of at least one agent; and enable tagging at least one agent in a comment or feedback are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the whisper functionality (i.e. software / code) represents a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, note that the limitations of insertion are claimed at such a high level of detail that they represent data gathering / electronic record keeping, which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the insertion is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the data input is further configured to enable alphabetic and numeric signs, tags and file attachments represents an additional element that is not a practical application or significantly more. The data input represents a general computer component and using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). Furthermore, [receiving] activity associated with alphabetic and numeric signs / tags / file attachment is claimed at a high level of detail, it represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0031] describing the additional element of the user interface including content in the form of alpha-numeric text, numerical data, and various attachments at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the whisper functionality is further configured to enable structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models is an additional element that is not a practical application or significantly more. The activity of inserting is high level data gathering / receiving data; and both the activity of training and the whisper functionality and amounts to merely using computers as a tool, which is not a practical application or significantly more. Reciting language models is no more than a general linkage to a technology (i.e. AI) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Note that there are no particular details regarding the technical process involved in the training of the model. Furthermore, the insertion is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0037] describing the additional element of training AI models at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10 and 18: The limitations wherein the tags are further configured to: display a list of agents; select at least one agent from the list of agents; notify the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag; and wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved are further directed to certain methods of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior and interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims (and the claims above), this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: The limitations wherein the structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models further comprises: a data tagging mechanism comprising executable instructions executed by a processor and configured to assign metadata tags to individual data records; a data categorization system implemented on a processor and configured to classify data records into predefined categories; a data labeling module configured to annotate data records with labels indicative of their content; a data organization component configured to arrange data records in hierarchical or relational structures; and a data extraction tool configured to extract specific data elements from data records are further directed to certain methods of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a data tagging mechanism, data categorization mechanism, data labeling module, data organization component, data extraction tool are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Reciting language models is no more than a general linkage to a technology (i.e. AI) which is not a practical application or significantly more. Note that there are no particular details regarding the technical process involved in the training of the model. Also, note that the steps of assigning, annotating, arranging, and extracting are each recited at such a high level of detail that they also represent the extra-solution activities of electronic record keeping and data gathering / retrieving data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the associating / annotating / arranging / extracting steps here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0037] describing the additional element of training AI models at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: First, the limitations wherein the communication threads comprise both synchronous and asynchronous messages enchanted between at least two users merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation to store a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality is an additional element that is not a practical application or significantly more, representing high level extra-solution data storage. Furthermore, storing here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19: The limitations of associating metadata with individual data records with a data tagging mechanism; classifying data records into predefined categories with a data categorization system; annotating data records with labels indicative of their content with a data labeling module; arranging data records in hierarchical or relational structures with a data organization component configured to; and extracting specific data elements from data records with a data extraction tool are further directed to certain methods of certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a data tagging mechanism, data categorization mechanism, data labeling module, data organization component, data extraction tool are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Also, note that the steps of associating, annotating, arranging, and extracting are each recited at such a high level of detail that they also represent the extra-solution activities of electronic record keeping and data gathering / retrieving data, which is not a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the associating / annotating / arranging / extracting activities here are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction), arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information (Versata). Similar to the independent claims and the claim above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1 and 12, and the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-19 are ineligible.
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 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 1-8, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2009/0245500 A1 to Wampler in view of US patent application publication 2014/0280612 A1 to Beslic et al. in view of US patent application publication 2013/0067351 A1 to Yokoi et al.
Claim 1:
Wampler, as shown, teaches the following:
A system for agent to end user supervisory mechanism (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038] details an agent monitoring chat interaction between the customer / user and an AI system), the system comprising:
a control module comprising executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executed by a processor and configured to oversee ongoing chat sessions in real-time (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0042-43], ¶[0048] details an agent monitoring chat interaction between the customer / user and an AI system, viewing message interactions by the source party with the timestamps as they are sent in a live agent display; and functions are executed by a computer system with a processor);
an authorization module comprising executable instructions executed by a processor to verify membership and configured to enable authorized agents to conduct active supervision (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0045], ¶[0048] details chat sessions are assigned to a live agent where the chat sessions are either active between the user and the live agent or active with the user and the AI system and the agent monitors the interaction between the user and the AI; the system determines which live agents are currently available with the ‘Who’s Online’ button (i.e. verifying membership); and functions are executed by a computer system with a processor);
a consolidated view module comprising executable instructions to generate, on a display of an agent device a view and enable the end user to browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038], ¶[0045] details an agent interface window that displays a list of the current live chat sessions that are assigned to the live agent, which include chat sessions between the customer / user and AI system which the live agent is monitoring, and includes the ability to select individual chats and limit the max-chats number of chats displayed on-screen at a time; and Fig 2-3, ¶[0028-29] details the customer (i.e. end user) has a chat GUI displayed to view their chat interactions with the assigned AI agent / live agent);
a communication module comprising executable instructions executed by a processor and configured to enable a whisper functionality to facilitate communication between authorized agents involved in chat sessions (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0021-22], ¶[0039], ¶[0048-50] details a computer bus / modem / interface devices for communication, alerts regarding chat sessions with automated AI agents need manual intervention, the ability for a live agent to transfer chat sessions to other live agents; and communicating automated responses from the AI system to the live agent (communication between authorized agents) for use in the chat conversation delivered through the user interface; and functions are executed by a computer system with a processor),
With respect to the following:
a data management module configured to store and organize chat session data, facilitate subsequent analysis, evaluation, and optimization of supervisory activities;
Wampler, as shown in ¶[0019], ¶[0032], ¶[0044] details data management functionality that analyzes and evaluates chat session data to then make recommendations / suggestions regarding responses for the live agent to select / update for the conversation (i.e. optimizing supervisory activities), and also analyzing the text to continually update the knowledge database to update the responses (i.e. optimizing supervisory activities); and storing keywords / rules / responses in the knowledge database; but does not explicitly state that the chat session data is stored and organized. However, Beslic teaches this remaining limitation, storing chat content of the chat channel and archiving it in a chat database with an identifier of the business or the chat host and the user, along with storing chat metadata; and also teaches running a computerized analysis of the chat database to identify chat performance measurements for any business or chat host during a specified period of time (i.e. analysis, evaluation, optimization of supervisory activities), using this information for managing seats (i.e. agents) (Beslic ¶[0012], ¶[0129], ¶[0135-136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a data management module configured to store and organize chat session data, facilitate subsequent analysis, evaluation, and optimization of supervisory activities as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler, with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a data management module configured to store and organize chat session data, facilitate subsequent analysis, evaluation, and optimization of supervisory activities as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler (in view of Beslic) also teaches the following:
a data input arranged on the processor and configured to enable the text content (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0040-43], ¶[0048] details a text entry box and processor, and using the user interface to either select an AI generated response or create a combination of AI generated response with live agent editing content to be sent); and
wherein whisper functionality is configured to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only for the authorized agents (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0030], ¶[0041-42] details the AI assisted agent creates proposed response options that are only visible to the live agent and not the user / customer, and the response is not sent unless the Send / Enter button is selected);
With respect to the following:
wherein whisper functionality is further configured to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication; and
Wampler, as shown in Fig 4, ¶[0030], ¶[0041], ¶[0044] details the AI system sends proposed response options to the live agent actively during a chat with the customer in the message panel (i.e. real time communication), and allows a live agent or supervisor to review the text in messages typed / pasted in the windows to evaluate the successfulness of the responses; but does not explicitly state sending whisper functionality to the live agent through asynchronous communication. However, Yokoi teaches this limitation, first by obtaining and storing electronic messages (e.g. Internet Relay Chat (IRC) messages, email messages) that have been tagged in association with a user (i.e. live agent) and another party as a source of feedback, the manager searches for messages tagged as feedback for the user to identify a feedback pool and determine areas for improvement; and the manager sends the user / agent a performance review with collected feedback (e.g. criticism / praise / instruction messages, i.e. whisper functionality) through a future performance review document (i.e. asynchronous communication) (Yokoi Fig 6, ¶[0003], ¶[0026], ¶[0037], ¶[0042], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein whisper functionality is further configured to be available for… asynchronous communication as taught by Yokoi with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic, with the motivation to “facilitate diverting, tagging, or otherwise associating messages for predetermined purposes” and “take advantage of naturally occurring day-to-day feedback that is frequently provided by others as part of the normal course of business” (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein whisper functionality is further configured to be available for… asynchronous communication as taught by Yokoi in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
wherein the data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage (Beslic Fig 9-10, ¶[0134-135] details using a data storage across multiple clustered database servers of Solr Shards; and using servers grouped in the Oort Cloud cluster with a database layer, where that data is distributed across multiple clustered database servers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Yokoi also teaches the following:
wherein the control module is further configured to:
store a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0028], ¶[0040], ¶[0042] details storing the electronic messages which include communication threads, chat messages, email messages; and the electronic messages are used in the future performance review to the user / agent); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality as taught by Yokoi with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), with the motivation to “facilitate diverting, tagging, or otherwise associating messages for predetermined purposes” and “take advantage of naturally occurring day-to-day feedback that is frequently provided by others as part of the normal course of business” (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include store a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality as taught by Yokoi in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
wherein the communication threads comprise both synchronous and asynchronous messages enchanted between at least two users (Wampler Fig 4-5, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0044] details a log of chat (asynchronous) messages communicated between the live agent (or AI system agent) and the customer / user, and proposed response (synchronous) messages communicated from the AI system to the live agent that may be added into the chat thread by the live agent); and
wherein the communication threads are configured to be exchanged between at least one user and a chatbot (Wampler Fig 4-5, ¶[0038-39] details chat messages include chat threads between a user / customer and an AI system agent).
Claim 3:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
wherein the authorization module is further configured to:
store a list of agents and assignment to an authorization set (Beslic Fig 11, ¶[0013], claim 10 details storing seat management records, and stored data specifies whether the user (agent) is authorized by the business and meets the criteria);
view the list of agents and assignment to the authorization set (Beslic Fig 47, ¶[0172] details searching and viewing the list of assigned profiles of chat hosts applicable to the search criteria set, which includes chat hosts associated with a business);
browse the list of agents (Beslic Fig 47, ¶[0172] details searching and viewing the list of assigned profiles of chat hosts applicable to the search criteria set, which includes chat hosts associated with a business);
verify an assignment to the authorization set on demand (Beslic Fig 47, ¶[0172] details searching and viewing the list of assigned chat hosts applicable to the search criteria set, which includes chat hosts associated with a business);
adjust the assignment to authorization set (Beslic Fig 42-44, ¶[0167-168] details configuring seat operators (chat hosts) and designating other representatives for handling chat sessions);
grant access to the scope of chat sessions based on the assignment to an authorization set (Beslic Fig 42-44, ¶[0167-168] details configuring seat operators (chat hosts) and designating other representatives for handling chat sessions, and chat hosts may be assigned by broadcast message / round robin / first to respond / all who respond); and
wherein authorization set comprises a scope of chat sessions that the at least one agent can access (Beslic Fig 42-44, ¶[0166-167] details the channel (scope) that a set of chat hosts / robots are selected that can access for chats).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing a list of agents and assignment to an authorization set; viewing the list of agents and assignment to the authorization set; browsing the list of agents; verifying an assignment to the authorization set on demand; adjusting the assignment to authorization set; granting access to the scope of chat sessions based on the assignment to an authorization set; and wherein authorization set comprises a scope of chat sessions that the at least one agent can access as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing a list of agents and assignment to an authorization set; viewing the list of agents and assignment to the authorization set; browsing the list of agents; verifying an assignment to the authorization set on demand; adjusting the assignment to authorization set; granting access to the scope of chat sessions based on the assignment to an authorization set; and wherein authorization set comprises a scope of chat sessions that the at least one agent can access as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Wampler also teaches the following:
wherein the consolidated view module is configured to display all available chat sessions that the at least one agent can access (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038] details displaying a dashboard list of the currently assigned live chat sessions to the live agent, including the AI system agent chat sessions the live agent is monitoring) and
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
to adjust the list of the available chat sessions based on the communication with the authorization module (Beslic Fig 29, ¶[0128], ¶[0166-168], claims 1 and 7 details identifying chat hosts that meet the criteria and availability, checking the current number of opened chat channels for each seat (available chat sessions for an agent), creating a chat session for a new chat request that connects an available representative of the channel on a round-robin basis or for a new chat request with all available requesters / representatives of the channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to adjust the list of the available chat sessions based on the communication with the authorization module as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to adjust the list of the available chat sessions based on the communication with the authorization module as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Beslic also teaches the following:
wherein the communication module further comprises:
an API configured to communicate with the data management module over the network (Beslic Fig 8, ¶[0120], ¶[0133-134] details using the RESTful API for communication between clients and servers for the chat messages, and using Search API / Façade for searching the database layer); and
wherein the API is configured to communicate with the chat provider (Beslic Fig 8, Fig 10, ¶[0120], ¶[0133], ¶[0135] details using the RESTful API for communication between clients and servers for the chat messages; and the Chat API for chat components); and
wherein the chat provider comprises an external service provider configured to deliver a communication channel configured to enable the chat sessions (Beslic Fig 44 details using external chat communication providers for chat robot communication that include Facebook and Twitter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the communication module further comprises: an API configured to communicate with the data management module over the network; and wherein the API is configured to communicate with the chat provider; and wherein the chat provider comprises an external service provider configured to deliver a communication channel configured to enable the chat sessions as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the communication module further comprises: an API configured to communicate with the data management module over the network; and wherein the API is configured to communicate with the chat provider; and wherein the chat provider comprises an external service provider configured to deliver a communication channel configured to enable the chat sessions as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Wampler also teaches the following:
wherein the data management module further comprises:
a processor configured to execute data management operations (Wampler ¶[0048-49] details a processor that executes the instructions stored in memory);
a memory storage for storing data records (Wampler ¶[0048] details a memory that stores information and instructions);
input interfaces configured to transmit data records (Wampler Fig 2, Fig 4, ¶[0009], ¶[0038], ¶[0049] details input interfaces including the live agent chat GUI where information is entered by text, clicked, selected);
output interfaces configured to receive and transmit data records (Wampler Fig 2, Fig 4, ¶[0038], ¶[0049] details display interfaces including the live agent chat GUI where information is received and presented);
a data management algorithm configured to be stored in the memory storage and to operate on the processor (Wampler ¶[0035], ¶[0048] details the system instructions are stored in memory and executed by the processor, and include generating AI messages based on analysis of live agent’s messages and the interactions between the customer and live agent); and
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
wherein the data records comprise chat sessions, list of agents and assignment to an authorization set (Beslic ¶[0012-13] details storing content of the chat channel and archiving content of the chat that includes associated identifier of the chat host (i.e. agent); and storing a set of chat hosts (i.e. agents) that are authorized by a business to host a chat based on criteria).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data records comprise chat sessions, list of agents and assignment to an authorization set as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data records comprise chat sessions, list of agents and assignment to an authorization set as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 7:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Wampler also teaches the following:
wherein the whisper functionality is further configured to:
enable commenting on a chat session of at least one agent (Wampler ¶[0041], claim 6 details typing a response or editing a proposed response into a chat session with a customer by a live agent);
Yokoi (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
enable insertion of feedback on a message from the chat session of at least one agent (Yokoi Fig 2-3, ¶[0028], ¶[0050], ¶[0055] details tagging an electronic communication which may include a chat for feedback that associates the chat message with the employee, the electronic communication may be an IRC (Internet relay chat) message);
enable insertion feedback on a group of messages from the chat session of at least one agent (Yokoi ¶[0028], ¶[0034-35], ¶[0043], ¶[0050], ¶[0055] details tagging a pool of electronic communication which may each include a chat for feedback that associates the respective messages (e.g. chat messages) with the employee); and
enable tagging at least one agent in a comment or feedback (Yokoi ¶[0055] details designating for the tag what employee the feedback will pertain to regarding the electronic communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include enabling insertion of feedback on a message from the chat session of at least one agent; enabling insertion feedback on a group of messages from the chat session of at least one agent; and enabling tagging at least one agent in a comment or feedback as taught by Yokoi with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), with the motivation to “facilitate diverting, tagging, or otherwise associating messages for predetermined purposes” and “take advantage of naturally occurring day-to-day feedback that is frequently provided by others as part of the normal course of business” (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include enabling insertion of feedback on a message from the chat session of at least one agent; enabling insertion feedback on a group of messages from the chat session of at least one agent; and enabling tagging at least one agent in a comment or feedback as taught by Yokoi in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the data input is further configured to enable alphabetic and numeric signs, tags and file attachments.
Wampler, as shown in ¶[0049] details the data input into the comments may include text from an alphanumeric device including alphanumeric keys, but does not explicitly state inputs include tags and file attachments. However, Yokoi teaches this remaining limitation, inputting tags with electronic communication (chats) and attachments for the feedback pool collection of content (Yokoi Fig 2-3, ¶[0028], ¶[0034], ¶[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data input is further configured to enable alphabetic and numeric signs, tags and file attachments as taught by Yokoi with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), with the motivation to “facilitate diverting, tagging, or otherwise associating messages for predetermined purposes” and “take advantage of naturally occurring day-to-day feedback that is frequently provided by others as part of the normal course of business” (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data input is further configured to enable alphabetic and numeric signs, tags and file attachments as taught by Yokoi in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 8. Beslic also teaches the following:
wherein the tags are further configured to:
display a list of agents (Beslic Fig 34, ¶[0159] details displaying a list of business users available for chat and their user profile representations);
select at least one agent from the list of agents (Beslic Fig 34, ¶[0012], ¶[0159], ¶[0168] the displayed list of business users and their profile representations states whether they are assigned as round-robin, i.e. selected; and selecting a representative to handle a chat session and adding their identifier to the chat identifier);
notify the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag (Beslic ¶[0124] details notifying the business user(s) when they are assigned to a chat with a message which their user profile has been assigned); and
wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved (Beslic Fig 36, ¶[0124], ¶[0161] details notifying the business user(s) when they are assigned to a chat with a message which their user profile has been assigned, business users can set their notification settings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the tags are further configured to: display a list of agents; select at least one agent from the list of agents; notify the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag; and wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the tags are further configured to: display a list of agents; select at least one agent from the list of agents; notify the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag; and wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12:
Wampler, as shown, teaches the following:
A method for agent to end user supervisory mechanism (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038] details an agent monitoring chat interaction between the customer / user and an AI system), the method comprising the steps of:
overseeing of ongoing chat sessions in real-time with a control module (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0042-43] details an agent monitoring chat interaction between the customer / user and an AI system, viewing message interactions by the source party with the timestamps as they are sent in a live agent display);
authorizing agents with an authorization module (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038-39] details chat sessions are assigned to a live agent where the chat sessions are either active between the user and the live agent or active with the user and the AI system and the agent monitors the interaction between the user and the AI);
permitting and enabling agents or authorized agents to conduct active supervision (Wampler Fig 4-5, ¶[0038] details the live agent may select a chat session to actively monitor a session between a customer / user and the AI agent);
enabling agents to view and browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account with a consolidated view module (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0038], ¶[0045] details an agent interface window that displays a list of the current live chat sessions that are assigned to the live agent, which include chat sessions between the customer / user and AI system which the live agent is monitoring, and includes the ability to select individual chats and limit the max-chats number of chats displayed on-screen at a time);
facilitating communication between authorized agents involved in a chat sessions with a communication module (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0021-22], ¶[0039], ¶[0048-50] details a computer bus / modem / interface devices for communication, alerts regarding chat sessions with automated AI agents need manual intervention, the ability for a live agent to transfer chat sessions to other live agents; and communicating automated responses from the AI system to the live agent (i.e. communication between authorized agents) for use in the chat conversation delivered through the user interface);
With respect to the following:
storing and organizing chat session data with a data management module;
facilitating analysis of chat session data with a data management module;
optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data with a data management module;
Wampler, as shown in ¶[0019], ¶[0032], ¶[0044] details data management functionality that analyzes and evaluates chat session data (i.e. facilitating analysis of chat session data with a data management module) to then make recommendations / suggestions regarding responses for the live agent to select / update for the conversation (i.e. optimizing supervisory activities), and also analyzing the text to continually update the knowledge database to update the responses (i.e. optimizing supervisory activities); and storing keywords / rules / responses in the knowledge database; but does not explicitly state storing and organizing chat session data with a data management module. However, Beslic teaches this remaining limitation, storing chat content of the chat channel and archiving it in a chat database with an identifier of the business or the chat host and the user, along with storing chat metadata (i.e. storing and organizing chat session data with a data management module); and also teaches running a computerized analysis of the chat database to identify chat performance measurements for any business or chat host during a specified period of time (i.e. facilitating analysis of chat session data with a data management module; optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data with a data management module), using this information for managing seats (i.e. agents) (Beslic ¶[0012], ¶[0129], ¶[0135-136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing and organizing chat session data with a data management module; (and facilitating analysis of chat session data with a data management module; optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data with a data management module) as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler, with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing and organizing chat session data with a data management module; (and facilitating analysis of chat session data with a data management module; optimizing supervisory activities of chat session data with a data management module) as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler (in view of Beslic) also teaches the following:
enabling comments with text with use of a data input arranged on the processor (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0040-43], ¶[0048] details a text entry box and processor, and using the user interface to either select an AI generated response or create a combination of AI generated response with live agent editing content to be sent);
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic) also teaches the following:
tagging the at least one agent in the comments (Beslic ¶[0012] storing the content of the chat message and chat metadata in association with the identifier of the chat host);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include tagging the at least one agent in the comments as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include tagging the at least one agent in the comments as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler (in view of Beslic) also teaches the following:
wherein whisper functionality is enabled to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only to the authorized agents (Wampler Fig 4, ¶[0030], ¶[0041-42] details the AI assisted agent creates proposed response options that are only visible to the assigned live agent and not the user / customer, and the response is not sent unless the Send / Enter button is selected);
With respect to the following:
wherein the whisper functionality is configured to be available for both real time and asynchronous communication; and
Wampler, as shown in Fig 4, ¶[0030], ¶[0041], ¶[0044] details the AI system sends proposed response options to the live agent actively during a chat with the customer in the message panel (i.e. real time communication), and allows a live agent or supervisor to review the text in messages typed / pasted in the windows to evaluate the successfulness of the responses; but does not explicitly state sending whisper functionality to the live agent through asynchronous communication. However, Yokoi teaches this limitation, first by obtaining and storing electronic messages (e.g. Internet Relay Chat (IRC) messages, email messages) that have been tagged in association with a user (i.e. live agent) and another party as a source of feedback, the manager searches for messages tagged as feedback for the user to identify a feedback pool and determine areas for improvement; and the manager sends the user / agent a performance review with collected feedback (e.g. criticism / praise / instruction messages, i.e. whisper functionality) through a future performance review document (i.e. asynchronous communication) (Yokoi Fig 6, ¶[0003], ¶[0026], ¶[0037], ¶[0042], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein whisper functionality is further configured to be available for… asynchronous communication as taught by Yokoi with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic, with the motivation to “facilitate diverting, tagging, or otherwise associating messages for predetermined purposes” and “take advantage of naturally occurring day-to-day feedback that is frequently provided by others as part of the normal course of business” (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein whisper functionality is further configured to be available for… asynchronous communication as taught by Yokoi in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
wherein the data management module is arranged on at least one of data storage and cloud storage (Beslic Fig 9-10, ¶[0134-135] details using a data storage across multiple clustered database servers of Solr Shards; and using servers grouped in the Oort Cloud cluster with a database layer, where that data is distributed across multiple clustered database servers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the data management module is arranged in at least one of data storage and cloud storage as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Note that enabling as recited in the claim limitations only allow the possibility of functions to occur and is not sufficient to convey the active method steps of the described functions (e.g. permitting and enabling agents or authorized agents to conduct active supervision; enabling agents to browse ongoing chat interactions within a defined account with a consolidated view module; enabling comments with text with use of a data input arranged on the processor; wherein the whisper functionality is enabled to facilitate transmission of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only to the authorized agents”). Should the Applicant desire these features/functions to get patentable weight, the Office recommends amending the claims to represent these features as active method steps (e.g. authorizing agents to conduct active supervision; viewing and browsing, by the agents, ongoing chat interactions within a defined account with a consolidated view module; entering, by use of a data input arranged on the processor, comments with text; wherein the whisper functionality includes transmitting of guidance, instructions, and insights visible only to the authorized agents).
Claim 13:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 12. Yokoi also teaches the following:
storing a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0028], ¶[0040], ¶[0042] details storing the electronic messages which include communication threads, chat messages, email messages; and the electronic messages are used in the future performance review to the user / agent); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality as taught by Yokoi with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), with the motivation to “facilitate diverting, tagging, or otherwise associating messages for predetermined purposes” and “take advantage of naturally occurring day-to-day feedback that is frequently provided by others as part of the normal course of business” (Yokoi ¶[0002], ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include store a list of communication threads available to the whisper functionality as taught by Yokoi in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic (in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
wherein communication threads comprises both synchronous and asynchronous messages enchanted between at least two users (Wampler Fig 4-5, ¶[0038-39], ¶[0044] details a log of chat (asynchronous) messages communicated between the live agent (or AI system agent) and the customer / user, and proposed response (synchronous) messages communicated from the AI system to the live agent that may be added into the chat thread by the live agent).
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 6.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7.
Claim 18:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 12. Beslic also teaches the following:
displaying a list of agents (Beslic Fig 34, ¶[0159] details displaying a list of business users available for chat and their user profile representations);
selecting at least one agent from the list of agents (Beslic Fig 34, ¶[0012], ¶[0159], ¶[0168] the displayed list of business users and their profile representations states whether they are assigned as round-robin, i.e. selected; and selecting a representative to handle a chat session and adding their identifier to the chat identifier);
notifying the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag (Beslic ¶[0124] details notifying the business user(s) when they are assigned to a chat with a message which their user profile has been assigned); and
wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved (Beslic Fig 36, ¶[0124], ¶[0161] details notifying the business user(s) when they are assigned to a chat with a message which their user profile has been assigned, business users can set their notification settings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying a list of agents; selecting at least one agent from the list of agents; notifying the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag; and wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying a list of agents; selecting at least one agent from the list of agents; notifying the at least one agent selected from the list of agents about a tag; and wherein the at least one agent is enabled to receive notification about the tag every time the comment with the tag is saved as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 18. With respect to the following:
associating metadata with individual data records with a data tagging mechanism (Beslic ¶[0012], ¶[0107], ¶[0134] details associating chat metadata with chat records in the chat database, and using a robot to service a chat session.);
classifying data records into predefined categories with a data categorization system (Beslic ¶[0104], ¶[0107] details that each chat channel (e.g. a communication path between a customer and a seat in a business (i.e. agent)) can be assigned to a category of communication with a business, and using a robot to service a chat session);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associating metadata with individual data records with a data tagging mechanism; classifying data records into predefined categories with a data categorization system as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include associating metadata with individual data records with a data tagging mechanism; classifying data records into predefined categories with a data categorization system as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler also teaches the following:
annotating data records with labels indicative of their content with a data labeling module (Wampler ¶[0044] details labeling individual text items in different colors based on whether they were sourced from the AI agent or from the live agent);
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi) also teaches the following:
arranging data records in hierarchical or relational structures with a data organization component configured to (Beslic ¶[0012] details storing context of the chat channel in association with an identifier of the chat host, i.e. relational structure); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include arranging data records in hierarchical or relational structures with a data organization component configured to as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include arranging data records in hierarchical or relational structures with a data organization component configured to as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler also teaches the following:
extracting specific data elements from data records with a data extraction tool (Wampler ¶[0021], ¶[0032] details identifying keywords matching in chat records).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2009/0245500 A1 to Wampler in view of US patent application publication 2014/0280612 A1 to Beslic et al. in view of US patent application publication 2013/0067351 A1 to Yokoi et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2023/0036072 A1 to Gao.
Claim 9:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the whisper functionality is further configured to enable structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models.
Wampler, as shown in ¶[0044] details analyzing the chat logs and particular text used by the AI to judge how well the AI system is operating, and to continually update the knowledge database used for the AI system (i.e. language model) that generates the proposed messages from the chat sessions (i.e. training the language model), but does not explicitly state a structured form of inserting data to support the training of the language models. However, Gao teaches this limitation using chatbots for customer support, and following a procedure for the insertion of words that are synonyms or slightly modified (i.e. structured form of inserting data) from already existing data to train the AI language model and increase the diversity of data (Gao ¶[0145], ¶[0157], claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models as taught by Gao with the teachings of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, with the motivation “increase the amount of diversity of data” (Gao ¶[0157]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models as taught by Gao in the system of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11:
Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi in view of Gao, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 9. With respect to the following:
wherein the structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models further comprises:
a data tagging mechanism comprising executable instructions executed by a processor and configured to assign metadata tags to individual data records (Beslic ¶[0012], ¶[0107], ¶[0134] details associating chat metadata with chat records in the chat database, and using a robot to service a chat session);
a data categorization system implemented on a processor and configured to classify data records into predefined categories (Beslic ¶[0104], ¶[0107] details that each chat channel (e.g. a communication path between a customer and a seat in a business (i.e. agent)) can be assigned to a category of communication with a business, and using a robot to service a chat session);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models further comprises: a data tagging mechanism configured to associate metadata with individual data records; a data categorization system configured to classify data records into predefined categories as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi in view of Gao), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the structured form of inserting data supporting training of language models further comprises: a data tagging mechanism configured to associate metadata with individual data records; a data categorization system configured to classify data records into predefined categories as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi in view of Gao), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler also teaches the following:
a data labeling module configured to annotate data records with labels indicative of their content (Wampler ¶[0044] details labeling individual text items in different colors based on whether they were sourced from the AI agent or from the live agent);
Beslic (of Wampler in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi in view of Gao) also teaches the following:
a data organization component configured to arrange data records in hierarchical or relational structures (Beslic ¶[0012] details storing context of the chat channel in association with an identifier of the chat host, i.e. relational structure); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a data organization component configured to arrange data records in hierarchical or relational structures as taught by Beslic with the teachings of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi in view of Gao), with the motivation of “managing user chat experiences with businesses” (Beslic ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a data organization component configured to arrange data records in hierarchical or relational structures as taught by Beslic in the system of Wampler (in view of Beslic in view of Yokoi in view of Gao), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wampler also teaches the following:
a data extraction tool configured to extract specific data elements from data records (Wampler ¶[0021], ¶[0032] details identifying keywords matching in chat records).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2016/0371756 A1 to Yokel et al. details seamless sharing of customer support chat sessions; in particular a chat session between a customer and customer support service representative may be reviewed in real time by a monitoring agent / supervisor / manager; the monitoring agent may provide live feedback as a chat message in the support chat session to the customer support representative that is not visible to the customer (Yokel ¶[0034]).
US patent application publication 2014/0214975 A1 to Blecon et al. details coaching with collaborative editing; in particular enabling chat functionality for an agent and supervisor where the supervisor can see all text composition and editing by the agent and customer, and the agent can see supervisor text amendments in a chat and the customer cannot see the supervisor text amendments (Blecon claims 4-5).
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 BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights