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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
The IDS received on 10/04/2023, 10/30/2023, 6/24/2024 and 10/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-11 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 2-8 and 10-12 recites the limitation " the robot ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “monitoring for one or more triggers associated with one or more tasks on the
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe digital assistant tasks between AI agent and user. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-12 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2-12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device to do the digital assistant tasks. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-12 depend. As a result, claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above. Where is using the computing device and the robot amounts to no more than a general computing component and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device and a step for digital assistant tasks. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2-12 depend. As a result, claims 2-12 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oros “US 2020/0134374 A1” (Oros).
Regarding Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for executing one or more digital assistant tasks, comprising:
monitoring for one or more triggers associated with one or more tasks on the computing device (at least see Oros Abstract; Fig. 1; [0037]-[0038]);
identifying one of the one or more triggers for execution of the one or more digital assistant tasks (at least see Oros Abstract; Fig. 1; [0008] and [0037]-[0038]; “[0008] In still another embodiment, a computer-implemented method for dynamic update, or retraining and update, of an AI/ML model includes listening for an update request for the AI/ML model, by an RPA digital process executing on a computing system. When the update request is received to update the AI/ML model, the computer-implemented method includes reinitializing or re-instantiating the RPA digital process to call an updated version of the AI/ML model and listening for another update request, by the RPA digital process executing on the computing system. The updating of the AI/ML model occurs during runtime of the RPA digital process. The RPA digital process includes an RPA workflow and the AI/ML model is called by an activity of the RPA workflow.”); and
loading a workflow associated with the identified one of the one or more triggers to complete one of the one or more digital assistant tasks (at least see Oros Abstract; Figs. 2-3; [0029] and [0038]), or
creating, by an AI agent, a new workflow associated with the identified one of the one or more triggers based on bidirectional communication between the AI agent and the user (at least see Oros Abstract; Figs. 5, 9-10 and 15; [0041]-[0042], [0061], [0075] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding Claim 2: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the activating the robot comprises activating, by the user of the computing device, the robot to perform monitoring of the one or more triggers for executing the one or more digital assistant tasks (at least see Oros Abstract; Fig. 1; [0037]0[0038]).
Regarding Claim 3: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the activating the robot comprises activating the robot to perform monitoring of one or more triggers automatically at startup of the computing device for executing the one or more digital assistant tasks (at least see Oros Fig. 1; [0029]).
Regarding Claim 4: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
upon activating of the robot, a toolbar is launched facilitating communication between the robot and the user, wherein the toolbar is configured to facilitate two-way communication between the robot and the user (at least see Oros [0049]).
Regarding Claim 5: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: upon activating of the robot, a graphical user interface is launched facilitating communication between the robot and the user, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to facilitate two-way communication between the robot and the user (at least see Oros [0065]).
Regarding Claim 6: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: communicating, by the robot, with the user via a toolbar or a graphical user interface for execution of one of the one or more tasks when the robot identifies the one of the one or more triggers (at least see Oros [0038]).
Regarding Claim 7: The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the communicating with the robot comprises sending, by the robot, a message suggesting a digital assistant task associated with the identified one of the one or more triggers (at least see Oros [0038]).
Regarding Claim 8: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the robot, a message comprising digital assistant task to be performed from the user via a toolbar or graphical user interface (at least see Oros Abstract; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9: The computer-implement method of claim 8, wherein the message comprises a media file (at least see Oros [0108]).
Regarding Claim 10: The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising: upon receipt of the message, comparing, by the robot, the media file with other media files stored in a machine learning (ML) database; identifying, by the robot, a workflow associated with the media file; loading, by the robot, the workflow associated with the media file; and executing, by the robot, the workflow associated with the media file (at least see Oros Fig. 5; [0062]).
Regarding Claim 11: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: when the robot is unable to load a workflow, creating a new workflow for the media file and storing the new workflow in the ML database (at least see Oros [0062]).
Regarding Claim 12: The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the creating of the new workflow comprises analyzing, by the robot, at least two workflows in the ML database; extracting, by the robot, at least one or more sections from each of the at least two workflows to create the new workflow; and sending, by the robot, the new workflow to the user via a graphical user interface or a toolbar for the user to confirm and prior to execution of the new workflow (at least see Oros Abstract; Fig. 3; [0065]).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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 Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627