DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 6/10/26. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [00127-033]. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 6/10/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-15 do not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are under 35 U.S.C. §101 and §112, as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Cheng et al. (US 2024/0303443 A1) in view of Gramacho et al. (US 2021/0006654 A1) for claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, and 15, and
Cheng in view of Gramacho as applied to claim(s) 6 above and further in view of Korenblit et al. (US 2007/0195945 A1) for claim(s) 13.
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, 5-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claims 1 and 15 that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to generating a text-summary of a multiple-sections text-document generated at a contact center.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 15 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1: a computerized-method for generating a text-summary of a multiple-sections text-document, said computerized-method comprising:
(i) operating a prompt-generator module to yield a prompt-text, said prompt-generator module comprising:
a. retrieving a rule of configuration of the text-summary of the multiple-sections text-document, from a summary-configuration database,
wherein said multiple-section text-document was created via an application that is running in a cloud-based Contact Center (CC) for a tenant, and
wherein the rule of configuration of the text-summary comprising at least one of:(i) required features in the multiple-sections text-document; (ii) length of each section; (iii) one or more recipients of the text-summary; (iv) number of multiple- sections text-documents included in the text-summary; and (v) format in which the text-summary is sent to the one or more recipients, and wherein said prompt-generator module is generating the prompt-text based on the required features in the multiple-sections text-document by embedding each feature in a prompt- template;
b. fetching data related to the multiple-sections text-document from a of the application,
wherein the multiple-sections text-document is a combination of more than one text-document, wherein the rule of configuration of the text-summary further comprising: (i) multiple text-documents in the combination of more than one text- document; and (ii) related entity of the combination of the more than one text-documents and a period of time thereof, wherein the related entity is one of: agent; team of agents; and organization unit that includes multiple teams of agents,
wherein the data related to the multiple-sections text-document comprising one or more sections, and
wherein each section of the one or more sections comprising one or more questions and each question of the one or more questions has a corresponding answer; and
c. generating the prompt-text based on the rule of configuration and the data related to the multiple-sections text-document and the multiple-sections text-document;
(ii) generating the text-summary by operating a Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) with Large Language Models (LLMs) service of a GenAI with LLM service-provider to execute the prompt-text;
(iii) generating an abbreviated-text-summary by operating the GenAI with LLMs service to execute an abbreviation-prompt with the text-summary to yield the abbreviated-text-summary, wherein the text-summary is a text object having a size that limits a number of text-summary objects that can be embedded in a periodic-prompt-text according to a token size supported by the cloud GenAI with LLM service-provider, and wherein the abbreviated-text-summary includes less text than the text-summary such that a greater number of abbreviated-text-summary objects than text-summary objects can be embedded in the periodic-prompt-text;
(iv) generating a periodic-text-summary of multiple text-documents by operating the GenAI with LLMs service to execute the periodic-prompt-text having embedded therein a plurality of abbreviated-text-summary objects;
(v) storing the abbreviated-text-summary in a summary-database; and
(vi) storing the text-summary in the summary-database to be used to operate one or more actions for the tenant.
Claim(s) 15: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-14 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 15 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with generating a text-summary of a multiple-sections text-document generated at a contact center.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include computerized, application, cloud-based, module, databases, generative AI, large language model (claim(s) 1, 15), processor (claim(s) 15), serverless streaming data service (claim(s) 2), module (claim(s) 4, 7), database (claim 5), user interface, database (claim(s) 8), gen AI, LLM (claim(s) 10, 14).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights