Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 2 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 13, & 15 – 22 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 02/12/2026. Claims 2, 12, & 22 were amended and claim 21 was cancelled in a reply filed 05/12/2026. Claims 2 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 20, & 22 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 after final rejection on 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/12/2026 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues, on pg. 11, that the claims do not recite a judicial exception which falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas because the claims “do not pertain to or recite managing a stable value protected life insurance policy, processing an insurance claim, hedging, mitigating settlement risk, arbitration, structuring a sales force, determining an optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, offer- based price optimization, processing a credit application, or processing information through a clearing-house.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claims recite processes (see below for full analysis) that encompass providing updated frequently-asked questions to customer service agents based on agent-customer interactions, which would be performed during business relations or during marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and also while following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 11 – 12, that the claims do not recite a judicial exception which falls into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the claims “simply cannot practically be performed in the human mind (with or without the assistance of pen and paper)” because “the human mind does not execute artificial intelligence models such as a bidirectional encoder representation from
transformers (BERT) model or a generative pretrained transformer (GPT) model.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the limitations directed to computer models and artificial intelligence are analyzed as additional elements separately from the Step 2A, Prong One analysis. Examiner submits that the steps of “analyzing… the transcript to generate a plurality of question- answer pairs; determining… whether each question-answer pair of the plurality of question-answer pairs is stored in a dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base, including determining… whether each generated question-answer pair from the transcript has a semantic meaning that matches a reference question-answer pair that is stored in the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base and that includes different words than the generated question-answer pair; determining…, in response to sending the question-answer pair to the contact center agent for approval, whether a question-answer pair of the plurality of question-answer pairs is frequently asked in response to determining that the question-answer pair is not stored in the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base, wherein determining whether the question-answer pair is frequently asked comprises determining whether the question of the question-answer pair has been asked a threshold number of times; and updating… the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base to include the question-answer pair in response to determining that the question-answer pair is frequently asked” could be reasonably performed in a human mind or with a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues, on pp. 12 – 14, that “the claims represent integration into a practical application” because “unlike the claims in Parker V. Flook, claim 2 recites specific details on how, for example, the computing system determines whether a question-answer pair from a set of question-answer pairs generated by the computing system from the analysis of the transcript obtained by the computing system of the interaction between the contact center agent and the client is frequently asked and not already in the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the “Supreme Court” has described the concern driving the judicial exceptions as “preemption”, the Courts do not use preemption as a stand-alone test for eligibility. For example, even though the claims in “Flook” did not wholly preempt the mathematical formula, and the claims in “Mayo” were directed to narrow laws that may have limited applications, the Supreme Court nonetheless held them ineligible because they failed to amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions (see Flook at 589-590; Mayo at 1302 cited at July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility page 8 Section VI and page 11 footnotes 26 to 29). Examiner also submits that the Federal Circuit has followed the Supreme Court’s lead in rejecting arguments that a lack of total preemption equates with eligibility (see e.g. buySafe 765 F.3d at 1355; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 also cited at July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at Section VI page 8 last ¶ to page 9 first ¶ and at page 11 footnote 27 and corroborated by “May 2016 Update: Memorandum - Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant's Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection” page 6 last bullet point to page 7 ¶1. Additionally, Examiner respectfully submits that claim 2 “recites specific details” of steps which fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, and are therefore ineligible.
Applicant next argues, on pg. 15, that “the claims represent integration of the alleged abstract idea because the claims are indicative of an improvement in a technological field” because “the features provide enhanced accuracy in computerized systems for identifying whether question and answer pairs are already present in a knowledge base and enable the computerized system to make that determination even when different words are used to express the same or similar meaning.”
Examiner respectfully submits that a human would likewise perform a determination of whether question and answer pairs are already present in a knowledge base when different words are used to express the same or similar meaning. Examiner further submits that enabling “the computerized system to make that determination” amounts to merely invoking computing devices to perform the determination, which amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, determining whether question and answer pairs are already present in a knowledge base when different words are used to express the same or similar meaning is merely an improvement to the recited judicial exception rather than an improvement to the way a computer functions or any other technology.
Applicant’s arguments on pp. 15 – 17, associated with well-understood, routine, and conventional elements have been considered but are not persuasive because the office action mailed 02/12/2026 did not classify any additional elements as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks associated with Ex Parte Desjardins, on pp. 17 – 18, Examiner respectfully notes that a full analysis of the claims, including every claimed element, both individually and in an ordered combination, has been performed in accordance with the MPEP and the Alice/Mayo analysis – which has led to the conclusion that the currently-amended claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 2 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 20, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2 – 3, 5 – 10, & 21 – 22 are directed to a process (i.e., a method). Claims 12 – 13, 15 – 20, & 22 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 2 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 20, & 22 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 2 & 12 substantially recite: “receiving… a transcript of a contact center interaction between a contact center agent and a client; analyzing… the transcript to generate a plurality of question- answer pairs; determining… whether each question-answer pair of the plurality of question-answer pairs is stored in a dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base, including determining… whether each generated question-answer pair from the transcript has a semantic meaning that matches a reference question-answer pair that is stored in the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base and that includes different words than the generated question-answer pair; sending… the question-answer pair to the contact center agent for approval; determining…, in response to sending the question-answer pair to the contact center agent for approval, whether a question-answer pair of the plurality of question-answer pairs is frequently asked in response to determining that the question-answer pair is not stored in the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base, wherein determining whether the question-answer pair is frequently asked comprises determining whether the question of the question-answer pair has been asked a threshold number of times; and updating… the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base to include the question-answer pair in response to determining that the question-answer pair is frequently asked.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass providing updated frequently-asked questions to customer service agents based on agent-customer interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Additionally, the claims also fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because the above steps are analogous to “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims fall under both the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 2 & 12, as a whole, amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as (ii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claims 2 & 12 recite the additional computer-related elements of “by a/the computing system,” “computing system comprising: at least one processor,” and “at least one memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, causes the computing system to.” Claims 2 & 12 also recite the additional elements of: “based on an artificial intelligence model” and “with one or more of a bidirectional encoder representations from transformers artificial intelligence model or a generative pretrained transformer artificial intelligence model.”
The additional elements of “by a/the computing system,” “computing system comprising: at least one processor,” and “at least one memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, causes the computing system to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the additional elements of “based on an artificial intelligence model” and “with one or more of a bidirectional encoder representations from transformers artificial intelligence model or a generative pretrained transformer artificial intelligence model,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., field) of artificial intelligence (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), as well as no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2 & 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as (ii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “by a/the computing system,” “computing system comprising: at least one processor,” “at least one memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, causes the computing system to,” “based on an artificial intelligence model,” and “with one or more of a bidirectional encoder representations from transformers artificial intelligence model or a generative pretrained transformer artificial intelligence model” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3, 5 – 10, 13, 15 – 20, & 22 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “transmitting an instruction to update the dynamic frequently asked questions knowledge base via a cloud-based application programming interface” in claims 6 & 16, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) as well as merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “wherein the computing system comprises a cloud-based computing system” in claims 7 & 17, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) as well as merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “wherein the computing system comprises an on-premises contact center system” in claims 8 & 18, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) as well as merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “selecting the artificial intelligence model from a plurality of prospective artificial intelligence models” in claims 9 & 19, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) as well as merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “determining, by the computing system, the semantic meaning with a natural language processing algorithm” in claim 22, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amounts to no more than merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) as well as merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights