Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
2. Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Intended use
3. Claim 3, “wherein… such that the report is generated in relation to the consultation topic.” Claim 5, “wherein the report is configured to include … a summary category configured to summarize…” Claim 7, “wherein the strategy category is configured to include…” Claim 15, “wherein the program comprising instructions to perform steps of”
The limitations “such that…”, “is configured to…” and “to perform steps of” describe intended use, and according to the MPEP, such language will not differentiate the claims from the prior art (MPEP 2103 I C).
Not positively recited
4. Claim 12, “wherein the consultation information is configured with a query input…”. Neither claim 1, 11 nor 12 positively recite a step of configuring “consultation information”. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the consultation information is configured…” does not further limit the method and will not differentiate the claims from the prior art.
35 U.S.C. 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 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.
7. Claim 1 recites- collecting subscription company data related to a company subscribing to a …;
storing the collected subscription company data in association with a subscription company account;
specifying a consultee from the consultation information, and collecting consultee data related to the specified consultee; generating a report related to the specified agent, using [model] with at least some of the subscription company data and the consultee data as input; and providing the generated report to a subscriber account of the subscription company.
Therefore, the claim recites “generating company reports”, which is a commercial or legal interaction (i.e. organizing human activity) and an abstract idea.
The additional elements of “platform” and “language model” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
8. Claims 14 and 15 also recite the abstract idea of “generating company
reports”. Both recite the additional element of “language model” and are silent “platform”. Claim 14, additionally recites “system… comprising a control unit…”, while claim 15 further includes a “program executed by one or more processes on an electronic device and stored on a computer-readable recording medium” and “the program comprising instructions”. The additional elements of claims 14 and 15 represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. And, as they do no more than represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to another technology or technological field. Hence, claims 14 and 15 are not patent eligible.
9. Claim 2 recites “searching for information and using the information to generate a
company report”. Therefore, the claim further describes “generating a company report”. Specifically, claim 2 recites- searching for information related to the specified consultee through an external…,
wherein the collecting of the consultee data comprises collecting the consultee data from a search result of the searching, wherein the generating of the report comprises generating the report using the consultee data collected from the external… and wherein the specified consultee is a specific company or a specific individual.
The additional element “website” represents the use of a computer, or computer
technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally
link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
10. Claim 3 recites “generating a company report based on a particular topic”.
Therefore, the claim further describes “generating a company report”. Specifically, claim
3 recites- specifying, by analyzing the consultation information, a consultation topic
related to the specified consultee; and specifying specific company data related to the consultation topic among
the company data, wherein the generating of the report, the specific company data related to
the consultation topic is… [as input to the model], such that the report is generated in relation to the consultation topic.
The additional elements “processed” and “language model” represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “processed”, the claim lacks technological details regarding how “the specific company data” is processed as input to the language model. As a result, it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
11. Claim 4 recites “generating a company report based on a particular topic”.
Therefore, the claim further describes “generating a company report”. Specifically, claim
4 recites- specifying a topic keyword related to the consultation topic;
setting a search term to include a name of the specified consultee and the topic keyword; and
searching, using the search term, for information related to the specified consultee, from the external…, and
wherein in the generating of the report, the report is generated in relation to the consultation topic, using a search result searched from the external… and specific company data related to the consultation topic as the search term including the topical keyword. The additional element “website” represents the use of a computer, or computer
technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally
link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
12. Claims 5, 7, and 8 recite “characteristics of a company report”. For example, the
claims recite “wherein the report is configured to include… a strategy category”,
“wherein the strategy category is configured to include a plurality of sub-categories…”,
and “wherein the winning scenario comprises…”, respectively. Therefore, they
do no more than describe the abstract idea of “generating a company report”.
13. Claim 6 recites “generating a company report by analyzing consultation
information and content is generated for each category using company data and in
response to a request.” For example, the claim recites “wherein in the generation of the
report, at least one category of the plurality of categories… is specified by analyzing
consultation information, using the specific company data… upon receipt of a request…
the report is generated by reflecting the received request.” Therefore, the claim does no
more than describe the abstract idea of “generating a company report”.
14. Claim 9 recites “providing the generated report to a user who is searching for the
report”. Therefore, the claim does no more than further describe the abstract idea of
“generating a company report”. For example, claim 9 recites “providing the generated
report to a subscriber account… using a search result searched from… using specific
company data…as the search term including the topic keyword”.
The additional element “website” represents the use of a computer, or computer
technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally
link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
15. Claim 10 recites “providing the generated report to a subscriber”. For example,
claim 10 recites “wherein, in the platform, a plurality of subscriber accounts are
registered and exist… wherein in the providing of the report… wherein the report is
provided to the subscriber account...”. Therefore, the claim does no more than
further describe the abstract idea of “generating a company report”.
16. Claim 11 recites “receiving information used to generate a report”. Therefore, the
claim does no more than further describe the abstract idea of “generating a company
report”. For example, the claim recites “wherein the consultation information is
received… [from] the subscription company and ….” The additional elements of “a
chatbot installed on a homepage” and “in conjunction with the platform” represent the
use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the generation of
company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment or field of use. With respect to “in conjunction with the platform”, the claim
lacks technological details regarding what “in conjunction” comprises, as a result it is no
more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
17. Claim 12 recites “receiving information used to generate a report”. Therefore, the
claim does no more than further describe the abstract idea of “generating a company
report”. For example, the claim recites “wherein is configured with a query input from
the specified consultee…” The additional element of “through the chatbot and an
answer to the query generated using the language model” represents the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use.
And, as the additional element does no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, it does not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
18. Claim 13 recites “receiving information used to generate a report”. For example,
the claim recites “wherein the consultation information is received through…” Therefore,
the claim does no more than further describe the abstract idea of “generating a company report”. The additional elements of “an inquiry page on the homepage…”, “an external messenger in conjunction with the platform”, and “AI contact (AICC)… in conjunction with the platform” represent the use of a computer, or computer technology, as a tool to implement the generation of company reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to “in conjunction with the platform”, the claim lacks technological details regarding what “in conjunction” comprises, as a result it is no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
And, as the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a
computer, or computer technology, as a tool to perform the generation of company
reports and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or
field of use, they do not improve computer functionality or provide an improvement to
another technology or technological field.
Not in one of the four statutory classes
19. Claim 15 is directed to a “program executed by one or more process… and stored
on a computer-readable recording medium”. Therefore, as “program” cannot be
categorized as a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter,
MPEP 2106.03 I) claim 15 is non-statutory.
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
20. 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.
21. Claims 1-14 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.
Lack of antecedent basis
22. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the specified agent” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
23. Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein in the providing of the report, among a plurality of subscribers" in line 4. According to claim 1, the report is provided to a “subscriber account”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Relative term
24. The term “external website” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “external website” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Para 85 of Applicant’s Specification considers an “external website” as one that “may include at least one of a portal site, a social networking service (SNS), a blog, and a homepage of a company that the specific consultee is affiliated with.” However, in the context of claim 2, as well as claim 1, Applicant has not provided a reference device that the website is “external” from. Claims 4 and 9, also as each recites “external website”.
25. The term “external messenger” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “external messenger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Para 23 of Applicant’s Specification mirrors claim 13. Therefore, the claim is deficient as Applicant has not provided a reference from which the messenger is “external” from. Neither has Applicant defined “messenger”.
More than one interpretation
26. Claim 6 recites “wherein in the generating of the report…”. Additionally, claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “generating a report…”. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill, the report is generated without receiving a request from a subscriber account. Claim 6, however, subsequently recites “… upon receipt of a request… from the subscriber account… the report is generated by reflecting the received request. Hence, the scope of the claim is unclear (MPEP 2173.02, I).
27. Claim 11 recites “wherein the consultation information is received through a chatbot installed on a homepage… and in conjunction with the platform.” However, claim 10, from which claim 11 depends, identifies the “consultation information” as being received “through a consultation channel in conjunction with the platform”. Therefore, it is not clear whether “consultation information” is received through the “consultation channel”, “chatbot”, or a combination of the two (MPEP 2173.02, I).
Means plus function
28. The claim 14 limitation of “wherein the control unit … is configured to: collect…; store…; … and provide…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While reciting the term “control unit” (e.g. fig 2, item 130; PGPub paras 54) as well as its functions (e.g. paras 60-63, 68, 82, 103 and 115), other than it “may be installed on the homepage of the subscription company and receive the consultation information through the chatbot…”, Applicant’s Specification fails to describe the structure of the “control unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims
29. Claims 2-13 are also rejected as they depend from either claim 1, 2, 4, 6 or 11.
35 U.S.C. 102
30. 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
31. Claims 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vieyra US 2022/0366459. 32. As per claims 1, 14 and 15, Vieyra teaches a method of generating a report using company data, the method comprising:
collecting subscription company data related to a company subscribing to a platform (fig. 11; paras 64-67, 73-76, 216-221, 303 and 304)
storing the collected subscription company data in association with a subscription company account (fig. 11; para 219)
receiving consultation information through a consultation channel in conjunction with the platform (fig. 14; paras 199-200 and 235-240)
specifying a consultee from the consultation information, and collecting consultee data related to the specified consultee (fig 18, item 1830; fig. 29, items 2915, 2920 and 2925; paras 189, 192, 209, 251, 261, 307, 330, and 332)
generating a report related to the specified agent (fig 18, item 1830; fig 29, item 2925), using a language model (paras 222 and 261) with at least some of the subscription company data (paras 220 and 293) and the consultee data as input (paras 199-200 and 330)
providing the generated report to a subscriber account of the subscription company (figs. 11, 18-item 1830, fig. 29- item 2920; paras 73-76, 232, 261, 292 and 293)
As per claims 14 and 15, Vieyra teaches a system for generating a report using company data, comprising a control unit (paras 64, 83 and 84) and a program executed by one or more processes on an electronic device and stored on a computer-readable recording medium (paras 64, 83 and 84). Additionally, with respect to claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the program comprising instructions to perform steps of: collecting… etc.”. However, “instructions to perform steps of: collecting… etc.” merely describes the intended use of the “program”. Therefore, as Vieyra teaches a program executed by one or more processes on an electronic device and stored on a computer-readable recording medium (paras 64, 83 and 84) it is sufficient in terms of prior art.
33. As per claim 13, Vieyra teaches wherein the consultation information is received through at least one of an inquiry page on the homepage of the subscription company, an external messenger in conjunction with the platform, or an AI contact center (AICC) in conjunction with the platform (figs. 5 and 14; paras 174-178 and 235-240).
35 U.S.C. 103
34. 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.
35. Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieyra US
20220366459 in view of Mezhibovzky et al., US 20160065741.
36. As per claim 2, Vieyra teaches:
searching for information related to the specified consultee… (fig 18, item 1830; fig. 29, items 2915, 2920 and 2925; paras 189, 192, 209, 251, 261, 307, 330, and 332)
wherein the collecting of the consultee data comprises collecting the consultee data from a search result of the searching (fig 18, item 1830; fig. 29, items 2915, 2920 and 2925; paras 189, 192, 209, 251, 261, 307, 330, and 332)
wherein the generating of the report comprises generating the report using the consultee data collected from … (figs. 11, 18-item 1830, fig. 29- item 2920; paras 73-76, 232, 261, 292 and 293)
wherein the specified consultee is a specific company or a specific individual (paras 74-76)
Vieyra does not explicitly disclose searching for information from an external website. However, this is taught by Mezhibovsky et al., as they teach selecting a service provider based on ratings retrieved from social media sites (paras 40, 110-112, 119, 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vieyra and Mezhibovsky et al. in order to access service requestor or service provider recommendations from external websites (‘459, para 228 “The act of recommending 1255 may exist internal and external of the marketplace, whereas recommending 1255 may occur between users within the marketplace website, with one or more users within the website and one or more users from external websites”).
37. As per claim 3, Vieyra teaches
specifying, by analyzing the consultation information, a consultation topic related to the specific consultee (paras 189, 278 and 293)
specifying specific company data related to the consultation topic among the company data (paras 189, 220 and 293)
wherein the generating of the report, the specific company data related to the consultation topic is processed as input to the language model, such that the report is generated in relation to the consultation topic (paras 220, 222, 261, 278 and 293).
38. As per claim 4, Vieyra teaches wherein the searching further comprises:
specifying a topic keyword related to the consultation topic (para 261);
setting a search term to include … and the topic keyword (para 261); and
searching, using the search term, for information related to the specified consultee, from …, (para 261) and
wherein in the generating of the report, the report is generated in relation to the
consultation topic, using a search result searched from the external website and specific
company data related to the consultation topic as the search term including the topical
keyword (paras 220, 222, 261, 278 and 293). Vieyra does not explicitly disclose search terms such as “name of the specified consultee”. However, Vieyra does teach search terms such as “price” or “rating” (para 124), “editors pick, popularity, most relevant, most recent, ratings, and others” (para 261), a “particular list of service providers” (para 277) or other options (para 278). Therefore, any particular term, such as a specific name, used to filter or search is a matter of design choice and not sufficient for differentiating the claim from the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 I).
Vieyra does not explicitly disclose searching for information from an external website. However, this is taught by Mezhibovsky et al., as they teach selecting a service provider based on ratings retrieved from social media sites (paras 40, 110-112, 119, 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vieyra and Mezhibovsky et al. in order to access service requestor or service provider recommendations from external websites (‘459, para 228 “The act of recommending 1255 may exist internal and external of the marketplace, whereas recommending 1255 may occur between users within the marketplace website, with one or more users within the website and one or more users from external websites”).
39. As per claims 5, 7 and 8, Vieyra teaches wherein the reports is configured to include content for each of plurality of predefined categories, and wherein the plurality of categories comprises at least one of a summary category configured to summarize the consultation information, a company current situation category including company information of the specified consultee, a latest current situation category including latest information on the specified consultee, or a strategy category including strategy information on meeting with the consultee (figs. 11, 18-item 1830, fig. 29- item 2920; paras 124, 261, 277, 278 and 315). Further, as the categories are expressed in the alternative, “the strategy category” is optional (MPEP 2103 I C), and therefore will not differentiate claims 7 and 8, from the prior art.
40. As per claim 6, Vieyra teaches wherein in the generating of the report, at least one
category of the plurality of categories requiring content generation is specified by analyzing the
consultation information, content is generated in each of the specified categories, using the specific company data and the consultee data related to the consultation topic, and in relation to the generation of the report, upon receipt of a request related to the generation of the report from the subscriber account, the report is generated by reflecting the received request (figs. 11, 18-item 1830, fig. 29- item 2920; paras 124, 220, 222, 261, 277-278 and 293).
41. As per claim 9, Vieyra teaches providing the generated report to a subscriber account of the subscription company (figs. 11, 18-item 1830, fig. 29- item 2920; paras 73-76, 232, 261, 292 and 293) using a search result searched from … using specific company data related to the consultation topic as the search term including the topic keyword (paras 124, 220, 222, 228, 261, 277-278 and 293). Vieyra does not explicitly disclose searching for information from an external website. However, this is taught by Mezhibovsky et al., as they teach selecting a service provider based on ratings retrieved from social media sites (paras 40, 110-112, 119, 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vieyra and Mezhibovsky et al. in order to access service requestor or service provider recommendations from external websites (‘459, para 228 “The act of recommending 1255 may exist internal and external of the marketplace, whereas recommending 1255 may occur between users within the marketplace website, with one or more users within the website and one or more users from external websites”).
42. As per claim 10, Vieyra teaches wherein, in the platform, a plurality of subscriber accounts are registered and exist, each corresponding to a plurality of subscribers affiliated with the subscription company, wherein in the providing of the report, among the plurality of subscribers, a specific subscriber having a job related to the consultation topic is specified, and
wherein the report is provided to the subscriber account of the specific subscriber that has
been specified (paras 75, 294 and 330).
43. 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.
44. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vieyra US
2022/0366459 in view of Highman et al., US 10,951,554.
45. As per claims 11 and 12, Vieyra teaches wherein the consultation information is
received… and in conjunction with the platform (paras 235-240). While Vieyra teaches a
service requestor recommending a service provider where the “act of recommending … may
exist… external of the marketplace” (para 228), Vieyra does not teach the service requestor
recommending a service provider via a chatbot installed on a homepage of the service requestor
(i.e. subscription company). Highman et al. teach collecting information from users via third-
party chatbot (col. 5, lines 1-20; col/line 6/46-7/30; col/line 13/64-14/8) that is external to a
business (col. 3, lines 10-24; col. 6, lines 46-51). Highman et al. also a query input … through
the chatbot and an answer to the query generated using the language model (fig 6; col. 6, lines
46-60; col. 17, lines 16-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vieyra
and Highman et al. in order to more efficiently on-board service requestor recommended service
providers (‘459, para 228; ‘554 col. 3, lines 1-9).
Conclusion
46. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reinsberg et al., US 20170011445 teach recommending service providers
47. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Calvin L. Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571) 272-6709.
The Examiner can normally be reached during 10:00AM-6:00PM Monday-Friday, EST.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information, about the PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would
like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN L HEWITT II/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights