DETAILED ACTION 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. 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. Claim (s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim(s) 15-20 are directed towards a “ storage medium having computer executable instruction ”. Specification does not define the term. T hus, it is unclear whether the term is meant to encompass signals or not. The broadest, reasonable interpretation of the term is applied and currently the examiner is assuming that it encompasses signals. Signals do not fall within any of the four statutory categories of invention, thus claim s 15-20 are not statutory. Examiner suggests amending claims to recite, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" to exclude non-statutory mediums such as signals . 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. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining sample training data that includes sets of questions and answer, weakening training of an intention identification model using various rounds of model trainings, performing intention identification on the sample input data, resetting a label of each intention and continuing to train the intention identification model by using the reset sample training data. The steps described above in the claims can be performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. Dependent claims also further limit these steps or recites similar steps that can be performed in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper Claims 1-7 do not integrate the exception into a practical application because there is no other element recited other than the abstract idea. Claims 8-20 recites using processor, storage device and storage medium to perform above steps which amounts to generic computer elements that is no more than simply applying the abstract ides using generic computer element. The addition generic computer elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The claim s 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of processor, storage device and storage medium which are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment performing steps that are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim s 1-20 are not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhai et al. (US 2021/0256969 A1). Rao et al. (US 2022/0107802 A1). Ren et al. (US 2022/0114343 A1). Ranganathan (US 2023/02 2 2291 A1). Sun et al. ( CN115169334 (A) ) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1807 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3351 . 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. /YOGESH PALIWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435