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 25 August 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 12-15 of the Remarks that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application, and the claims contain additional elements that are significantly more than the 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 argues the service quality of the customer service system is improved by obtaining improved input data, which is an improvement in the abstract idea itself and not another technology or the functioning of the computer. Applicant argues the claim improves the service quality by using failed questions that are forwarded to manual customer service and achieves higher accuracy in subsequent interactions. The Examiner disagrees that significantly more than the abstract idea is present in the claims and an improvement in the business process is not a technical improvement. The claims output a user intention recognition result that is the same as the labeled and generated user intention for the user-raised question. Additionally, monopolization is not the sole factor in determining if the additional elements provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-17, filed 25 August 2025, with respect to 102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection of 11 June 2025 has been withdrawn. The prior art fails to teach or disclose at least “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 prestored in the manual customer service system.
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 1-9, 11-18, and 20-22 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 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. 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 generally link 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 2-9, 12-18, and 21-22 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 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.
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 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