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 .
Application, submitted on 10/04/2023, has been received, entered, and made of record. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. However, Applicant has not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s).
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. That is, the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a computer-readable storage medium (i.e., not a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage medium that is defined in the specification to include, for example, "random access memory (“RAM”), flash memory, read-only memory (“ROM”), erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM”), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (“EEPROM”), registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a compact disk read-only memory (“CD-ROM”), or any other form of storage medium" (see [0169] of specification). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim covers non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 18-20 fail to correct the issue. Thus, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 9 and 17.
The claims 1- 8 are directed to an apparatus, claims 9-16 are directed to a method and claims 17-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim 1 recites: “a memory configured to store call lists; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: receive content from a conversation between a user on a user device and a second user on a second user device that is connected to the user device via a network; identify a topic of the conversation based on execution of a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model on the received content from the conversation; identify a call list from among the call lists that are stored in the memory which is associated with the topic of the conversation based on keywords included in the identified topic of the conversation; and add an identifier of the user to the call list stored in memory.”
These limitations when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Mental Processes as these limitations relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and use of a pen and paper). Receiving content from a conversation between a user and a second user, and identifying a topic of the conversation is a mental process. Identifying a call list from among the call lists associated with the topic of the conversation based on keywords included in the identified topic of the conversation; and adding an identifier of the user to the call list is also a mental process.
The claim also recites a memory, a processor, and a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a memory, a processor, and a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as Mental Processes and possibly certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the concepts that can be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, respectively. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, a processor, and a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 9 and 17, and hence the claims 9 and 17 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 17 recites a processor and a computer-readable storage medium that amount to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to “Mental Processes” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
No Prior Art Rejections
Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20. While some individual features of claims 1-20 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-20. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
Gupta et al. (US 20230007063 A1) — This invention relates to algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms used to determine the topic and agenda based on analyzing the uttered speech.
Morris et al. (US 20220385491 A1) — The invention relates to an application server including Artificial Intelligence (AI) processes that identify topics and keywords in a current conference call that were recorded from previous conference calls as discussed in greater detail below.
Deole et al. (US 20220255889 A1) — The invention relates to one or more artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning algorithms used by post overlook system to determine a conversation thread topic.
Khafizov et al. (US 20210044697 A1) — The invention relates to one or more trained machine learning models that may process obtained text file to determine one or more most likely topics for the telephone call.
Wu (US 20180196796 A1) — The invention relates to systems and method that provide multiple topic automated (or artificial intelligence) chatting by analyzing user inputs in a conversation to determine a plurality topics, to determine and score features related to the determined topics and different users, and to create a knowledge graph of the determined topics. Based on these determinations, the systems and methods may determine if a reply should be provided and then predict a reply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSTAPHA DIABY whose telephone number is (571)270-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/MOUSTAPHA DIABY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683