Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 14-15 of the Remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees that the claims are do not recite an abstract idea because obtaining a target raised question submitted to the manual customer service system and a target quick response statement corresponding to the target raised question; determining a target intention label corresponding to the target quick response statement based on a preset first correspondence, wherein the first correspondence comprises a correspondence between the target quick response statement and the target intention label; labeling the target raised question and generating a user intention recognition sample set based on the target intention label, training a user intention recognition model, and performing intention recognition are both a mathematical process (training a model using data is mathematical process) with certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or interactions between people (following rules or instructions is similar to providing answers to common questions for customer service workers) and commercial or legal interactions (providing answers to questions in a customer service environment is similar to sale activities or behaviors and business relations). Applicant argue on pages 15-16 of the Remarks that the claims are integrated into a practical application that provides a technical improvement to intelligent customer service computer systems. The Examiner disagrees because the use of a single model that handles both recognized and unrecognized questions that improves accuracy of question answering is the use of a machine learning model to reduce error, which is a mathematical function, and the standard intended use of a MLM, the ability to perform tasks not explicitly programmed. The user intention label prestored in the manual customer service system is used to label the target question, which has been prelabeled manually by the manual customer service system and merely associated by the system to what has been labeled and subsequently used to further train the MLM. Applicant argues the claims contain significantly more than the abstract idea on page 16 of the Remarks. Further, the Applicant alleges that computing resources are saved, reduces iterations of the model training, and efficiently processes questions. The specification does not detail or disclose the specifics of any of these arguments and the alleged improvements are not readily apparent. Additionally, the MPEP 2106.04(d) specifies that the improvements must be limited to the functioning of a computer and the Examiner believes the abstract idea itself has been improved and not the method of training a MLM or the functioning of a computer. In the current claims, the computer and the model are similar to “apply it” language that uses the computer as a tool or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which in this case is providing answers to questions (both known and unknown) and is a manual process done by customer service representatives with a flowchart or similar script to reply to questions and any unknown questions are then added to subsequently assist future interactions. Additionally, monopolization is not the sole factor in determining if the additional elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a “user question labeling method, applied to a backend server of a manual customer service system”.
Claim 1 is directed to the concept of “providing answers to questions” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… managing personal behavior or interactions between people (following rules or instructions is similar to providing answers to common questions for customer service workers) and commercial or legal interactions (providing answers to questions in a customer service environment is similar to sale activities or behaviors and business relations)” and a mathematical process (training a model using data is mathematical process) in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Claim 1 recites receiving a first quick response statement uploaded by a first agent client; receiving a first intention label corresponding to the first quick response statement uploaded by the first agent client; storing a correspondence between the first quick response statement and the first intention label, wherein the correspondence between the first quick response statement and the first intention label comprises a first correspondence; obtaining a target raised question submitted to the manual customer service system and a target quick response statement corresponding to the target raised question wherein the target raised question comprises at least one of the following: a user question that cannot be answered by an intelligent customer service system and is in turn transferred to be answered by the manual customer service system, and a user question that is directly answered by the manual customer service system and cannot be recognized by the intelligent customer service system wherein the target quick response statement comprises: at least one quick response statement in a preset quick statement set; wherein the at least one quick response statement is selected from the preset quick statement set; wherein a similarity between the at least one quick response statement and a regular response statement is greater than a preset threshold, and the regular response statement is manually input by a manual customer for the target raised question through the manual customer service system; determining a target intention label corresponding to the target quick response statement based on the first correspondence, wherein the first correspondence comprises a correspondence between the target quick response statement and the target intention label; labeling the target raised question and generating a user intention recognition sample set based on the target intention label, training a user intention recognition model, and performing intention recognition. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claim such as a backend server, a manual customer service system, a processor and a memory represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than “apply” the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implement) the acts of providing answers to questions.
When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of providing answers to questions using computer technology (e.g. a processor and a memory). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, and 12-18 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea of the independent claims such as further data labeling and identification (claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 12-14, 18) and further stored responses (claim 6-8, 15-17). Additionally, receiving, analyzing and storing data are considered generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional because they are claimed in a generic manner and similar to storing and retrieving information in memory, performing repetitive calcuations, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Canim US 10909152.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights