DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 9/12/2024. Applicant has amended claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of “determining action to perform based on status of resource, previous actions taken and objective”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claim 8 recites “…communication session…between a source… and a host”, “determining an objective from communication content …during the communication session”, “receiving a current status of a resource associated with source … and previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”, “….model on the current status of the resource, the previous actions taken and the objective to determine an action to perform on the resource with respect to the objective”, “… image content associated with the objective”, “displaying the image content and a description of the action to perform … during the communication session” and “determining the action was performed”.
Accordingly, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claim 8 such as “executing…through a software application”, “device”, “captured”, “generating… (image)”, “..via a graphical interface of the software application on the source device” 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 technological environment or field of use. With respect to “executing a trained artificial intelligence AI model”, the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise and how the artificial intelligence (AI) model was trained (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “executing” is performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 9-14 further recite “…source….and displaying the image content (claim 9)”, “… a query … based on …receiving a response to the query…and determining the action to performed based on the query and the response (claim 10)”, “the resource comprises a description of assets and the action to perform comprises an action to take with respect to the assets (claim 11)”, “…additional image content that visually depicts the objects, and displaying the additional image content (claim 12)”, “image content comprising at least one of a chart and a graph (claim 13)”, “receiving a description of assets that previously existed within the resource and a description of actions taken on the assets (claim 14), which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy”. (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements of claims 9-14, such as “conducting a video conference…with device… based on software application…during the video conference (claim 9)”, “outputting…to the graphical user interface of the software application… (claim 10)”, “generating…on the graphical user interface of the software application on the source device (claim 12)” 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 technological environment or field of use. With respect to “execution of the trained AI model”, the claims lack detail regarding what “execution” comprise and how the artificial intelligence (AI) model was trained (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 9-14 are not patent eligible.
Claim 1 is also directed to the abstract idea of “determining action to perform based on status of resource, previous actions taken and objective”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 8, claim 1 includes additional elements such as “memory”, “processor coupled to the memory”, “execute…device…through software application”, “…managed by the software application on the source device…”, “…via a graphical user interface of the software application installed on the source device”. Each, however, does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “execute a trained artificial intelligence AI model”, the claims lack detail regarding what “execute” comprise and how the artificial intelligence (AI) model was trained (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 2-7 further recite “…conference with the source...based on … and display the image content …(claim 2)”, “..query… receive a response to the query…and determine the action to perform based on the query and the response (claim 3)”, “a description of the assets and the action to perform comprises an action to take with respect to the assets (claim 4)”, “…additional image content that visually depicts the objective, and display the additional image content …. (claim 5)”, “image content comprises at least one of a chart and a graph (claim 6)” and “resource comprises a description of assets that previously existed within the resource and a description of action taken on the assets (claim 7)” which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy”. (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
Depending claims 2-7 recite the additional elements of “conduct a video conference with the …device…based on the software application…during the video conference (claim 2)”, “output…to the graphical user interface of the software application…via a graphical user interface (claim 3), “generate…on the graphical user interface of the software application on the source device (claim 5)”. Each, however, does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “execution of the trained AI model”, the claim(s) lack detail regarding what “execution” comprise and how the artificial intelligence (AI) model was trained (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 2-7 are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is also directed to the abstract idea of “determining action to perform based on status of resource, previous actions taken and objective”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy” and “mathematical concepts”- model). (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
As in the case of claim 8, claim 15 includes additional elements such as “execute…device…through software application”, “…via a graphical user interface of the software application on the source device”. Each, however, does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “executing a trained artificial intelligence AI model”, the claims lack detail regarding what “executing” comprise and how the artificial intelligence (AI) model was trained (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Depending claims 16-20 further recite “…conference with the source...based on … and display the image content …(claim 16)”, “..query… receive a response to the query…and determine the action to perform based on the query and the response (claim 17)”, “a description of the assets and the action to perform comprises an action to take with respect to the assets (claim 18)”, “…additional image content that visually depicts the objective, and display the additional image content …. (claim 19)”, and “a description of assets that previously existed within the resource and a description of action taken on the assets (claim 20)” which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices”- wealth management/asset strategy”. (MPEP 2016.04(a)).
Depending claims 16-20 recite the additional elements of “conduct a video conference with the …device…based on the software application…during the video conference (claim 16)”, “output…to the graphical user interface of the software application…via a graphical user interface (claim 17), “generate…on the graphical user interface of the software application on the source device (claim 19)”. Each, however, does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. With respect to “execution of the trained AI model”, the claim(s) lack detail regarding what “execution” comprise and how the artificial intelligence (AI) model was trained (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than 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, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, depending claims 16-20 are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “receive a current status of resource managed by the software application on the source device a previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the current status is received on the source device 2) the resource is managed on the source device or 3) the software application is on the source device. The claim is indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “receive a current status of resource managed by the software application on the source device a previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”. It is unclear whether there is a missing word between “source device” and “a previous actions”. The sentence does not make sense.
Claim 1 recites “a previous actions”. It is unclear whether there is only one previous action (singular) or more than one previous actions.
Claim 1 recites “receive a current status of resource managed by the software
application on the source device a previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the current status is received over a predetermined period of time 2) the resource is managed over a predetermined period of time or 3) the previous actions were taken over a predetermined period of time. The claim is indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “receive a current status of resource managed by the software
application on the source device a previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the current status is received during the communication session 2) the resource is managed during the communication session or 3) the previous actions were taken during the communication session. The claim is indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “display the image content and a description of the action to perform via a graphical user interface of the software application installed on the source device during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the image content and description are displayed during the communication session 2) the software application is installed during the communication session. The claim is indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the software application installed on the source device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “receiving a current status of a resource associated with the source device and previous actions taken on the resource…”. It is unclear whether 1) receiving current status of a resource and current status of previous actions taken on the resource or 2) receiving a current status of a resource and receiving previous actions taken on the resource. The claims are indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “receiving a current status of a resource associated with the source device and previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the current status is received over a predetermined period of time or 2) the previous actions were taken over a predetermined period of time. The claims are indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “receiving a current status of a resource associated with the source device and previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the current status is received during the communication session or 2) the previous actions were taken during the communication session. The claims are indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “displaying the image content and a description of the action to perform via a graphical user interface of the software application on the source device during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the image content and description are displayed during the communication session 2) the action is to be performed during the communication session. The claims are indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite “displaying the image content and a description of the action to perform via a graphical user interface of the software application on the source device during the communication session”. It is unclear whether 1) the image content and description are displayed on the source device 2) the action is to be performed on the source device or 3) the software application is (installed?) on the source device. The claims are indefinite for having more than one meaning and/or interpretations. This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
All claims dependent from claims 1, 8 and 15 inherit the same rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreenivasan (US 2022/0237700 A1) in view of Miller et al. (US 2021/0174218 A1).
As pe Claim 1
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses
a memory and a processor coupled to the memory, see at least paragraphs 0023, 0254 0329 and 0330
execute a communication session between a source device and a host through a software application, see at least paragraphs 0197 and 0215
receive a current status of a resource managed by the software application on the source device a previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session, see at least paragraphs 0241, 0248, 0262, 0258, 0219, 0029, 0230
execute a trained artificial intelligence (AI) model on the current status of the resource, the previous actions taken, and the objective to determine an action to perform on the resource with respect to the objective, see at least paragraphs 0266, 0260, 0218, 0018, 0219 and Fig 39-47
generate image content associated with the objective, see at least Fig 42-47 and paragraph 0218
display the image content and a description of the action to perform via a graphical user interface of the software application installed on the source device during the communication session, see at least Fig 39-47 and paragraphs 0218 and 0266
determine the action was performed, see at least paragraphs 0266, 0260, 0324, 0258
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses determine an objective (goal) from communication content received during the communication session, see at least paragraph 0219 (GUI; risk questionnaire is completed and one or more goals are set), but fails to explicitly disclose the communication content is captured during the communication session. Miller (‘218) teaches capture content during communication session, see at least paragraphs 0008-0011, 0029, 0048, 0067. Both Sreenivasan and Miller are directed toward facilitating transfer of information. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sreenivasan’ invention to include communication content is captured during the communication session. One would have been motivated to do for the benefit of speeding up communication process.
As per Claim 2
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the source device based on the software application and display the image content during the communication, see at least Fig 39-47 and paragraph 0218, but fails to explicitly disclose the communication is a video conference. Both Sreenivasan and Miller are directed toward facilitating transfer of information. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sreenivasan’ invention to include conducting a video conference. One would have been motivated to do for the benefit of speeding up communication process.
As per Claim 3
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses wherein the processor is configured to output a query to the graphical user interface of the software application based on the execution of the trained AI model, receive a response to the query via the graphical user interface, and determine the action to perform based on the query and the response, see at least paragraphs 0215 and 0218 and Fig 39-47
As per Claim 4
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses a description of assets, and the action to perform comprises an action to take with respect to the assets, see at least paragraphs 0219, 0266, 0324 and 0258
As per Claim 5
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses wherein the processor is further configured to generate additional image content that visually depicts the objective, and display the additional image content on the graphical user interface of the software application on the source device, see at least Fig 39-47 and paragraph 0218
As per Claim 6
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses wherein the image content comprises at least one of a chart and a graph, see at least paragraph 0219 and Fig 47
As per Claim 7
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses a description of assets that previously existed within the resource and a description of actions taken on the assets, see at least paragraphs 0018, 0219 and Fig 95
As per Claims 8, 15
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses
A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein which when executed by a processor to cause a computer to perform *claim 15 only*, see at least paragraphs 0035 and 0036
executing a communication session between a source device and a host through a software application, see at least paragraphs 0197 and 0215
receiving a current status of resource associated with the source device and previous actions taken on the resource over a predetermined period of time during the communication session, see at least paragraphs 0241, 0248, 0262, 0258, 0219, 0029, 0230 and 0248 and Fig 47
generating image content associated with the objective, see at least Fig 42-47 and paragraph 0218
displaying the image content and a description of the action to perform via a graphical user interface of the software application on the source device during the communication session, see at least Fig 39-47 and paragraphs 0218 and 0266
determining the action was performed, see at least paragraphs 0266, 0260, 0324 and 0258
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses determine an objective from communication content received during the communication session, see at least paragraph 0219, but fails to explicitly disclose the communication content is captured during the communication session. Miller (‘218) teaches capture content during communication session, see at least paragraphs 0008-0011, 0029, 0048, 0067. Both Sreenivasan and Miller are directed toward facilitating transfer of information. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sreenivasan’ invention to include communication content is captured during the communication session. One would have been motivated to do for the benefit of speeding up communication process.
As per Claims 9, 16
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses
As per Claim 10
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses outputting a query to the graphical user interface of the software application based on the execution of the trained AI model, receiving a response to the query via the graphical user interface, and determining the action to perform based on the query and the response, see at least paragraphs 0215, 0218 and Fig 39-47
As per Claims 11, 18
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses wherein the resource comprises a description of assets, and the action to perform comprises an action to take with respect to the assets, see at least paragraphs 0219, 0266, 0324 and 0258
As per Claims 12, 19
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses generating additional image content that visually depicts the objective, and displaying the additional image content on the graphical user interface of the software application on the source device, see at least Fig 39-47 and paragraph 0218
As per Claims 13, 20
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses image content comprises at least one of a chart and a graph, see at least paragraph 0219 and Fig 47
As per Claim 14
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses receiving a description of assets that previously existed within the resource and a description of actions taken on the assets, see at least paragraphs 0018, 0219 and Fig 95
As per Claim 17
Sreenivasan (‘700) discloses outputting a query to the graphical user interface of the software application based on the execution of the trained AI model, a response to the query via the graphical user interface, generating the description of the objective based on the query and the response, see at least paragraphs 0215, 0218, 0245 and Fig 39-47
Additional art found (directed to state of art) but not used in the rejection: POWELL (US 2019/0026830 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights