DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application, filed February 27, 2026. Claims 1, 6-9, 14-17, and 21 are pending in this application. The applicant has canceled claims 2-5, 10-13, and 18-20.
Examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The present application was filed on November 7, 2023, which is on or after March 16, 2013, and thus is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 7-9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana et al. (US 2021/0089325 A1) in view of Stuchi et al. (US 2023/0337912 A1) and further in view of Sheppard et al. (US 2023/0403285 A1) and further in view of Green et al. (US 2019/0287517 A1) and further in view of Ramanasankaran et al. (US 2024/0402662 A1).
As per claim 1: A computer-implemented method for an interactive embedded conversational artificial intelligence (AI) agent on an electronic device, comprising:
receiving, from the remote chatbot over the communication channel, a set of instructions for resolving at least one potential fault of the electronic device;
Suryanarayana discloses [0037] if the software agent is able to identify corresponding solution tokens to the problem tokens, then the SLM may retrieve an associated script and send the script to the via the chat application to the computing device.
performing an inspection of at least one faulty component of the electronic device;
Suryanarayana discloses [0039] the computing device may include a scan application to scan the computing device. The scan data may include configuration data to indicate how various components of the computing devices are configured.
reporting an incident involving the at least one faulty component to a remote helpdesk if the at least one faulty component is not resolvable without human intervention; and
Suryanarayana discloses [0037] the user may use a chat application to initiate a chat with a software agent, such as a chat bot. The software agent may take a transcript of the chat, along with logs, like diagnostics logs.
dynamically taking one or more actions to automatically resolve the at least one faulty component if the at least one faulty component is resolvable without human intervention.
Suryanarayana discloses [0037] the chat application bot may store the script with the solution in a particular location and cause a reboot of the computing device. If the script was successfully executed, then the result may indicate that the script with solution was successfully executed (dynamically taking action to resolve potential fault). The chat application may also provide a message to the user indicating what actions were performed to address the issue.
generating a diagnostic report for the electronic device using the embedded conversational artificial intelligence (AI) agent on the electronic device;
establishing a communication channel, using the AI agent on the electronic device, with a remote chatbot,
sending, to the remote chatbot over the communication channel, the diagnostic report;
Suryanarayana discloses [0037] the user may use a chat application to initiate a chat with a software agent, such as a chat bot. The software agent may take a transcript of the chat, along with logs, like diagnostics logs. Suryanarayana discloses establishing communication with a remote chatbot and sending diagnostic report to the remote chatbot, but fails to explicitly disclose the diagnostic report is generated by the embedded AI of the device. Stuchi discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0127] performing, by the embedded AI of the system, diagnosis of patient data and sending a report of the diagnosis for deeper diagnostics at the cloud system, where the report is made on the device itself with the aid of the embedded AI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suryanarayana with that of Stuchi. One would have been motivated to generate diagnostic report using embedded AI because it allows to generate lightweight diagnostics before running deeper diagnostics at the cloud system [Stuchi; 0127].
wherein the communication channel provides end-to-end communication between the embedded conversational AI agent and the remote chatbot, and wherein the establishing of the communication channel is triggered by the AI agent;
Suryanarayana and Stuchi disclose establishing communication between AI agent on the electronic device with a remote chatbot, but fails to explicitly disclose the communication provides end-to-end and triggered by the AI agent. Sheppard discloses a similar method, which further teaches [Abstract; claim 1] enabling end-to-end communication between electronic devices. The devices can be a dialogue (communication) between a first device and an AI based chatbot. Sheppard further discloses [0133-0138] the system receives the communication object, checks the filter, and then creates pairing if conditions are met. The AI based chatbot initiates the communication object/networking pairing request, and the server side control computer then decides whether to create the pairing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suryanarayana and Stuchi with that of Sheppard. One would have been motivated to provide end-to-end communication because it facilitates privacy [Sheppard; 0002].
dynamically taking at least one action to automatically resolve the at least one potential fault if the at least one potential fault is resolvable without human intervention, wherein the at least one action is based on the set of instructions;
Suryanarayana discloses [0037] the chat application bot may store the script with the solution in a particular location and cause a reboot of the computing device. If the script was successfully executed, then the result may indicate that the script with solution was successfully executed (dynamically taking action to resolve potential fault). The chat application may also provide a message to the user indicating what actions were performed to address the issue. Suryanarayana discloses automatically resolving at least one potential fault, but fails to explicitly disclose resolving with or without human intervention. Green discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0050] a chat-bot may provide potential resolution resource to the user so that they can resolve the issue themselves, if the issue cannot be resolved by the chat-bot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suryanarayana, Stuchi, and Sheppard with that of Green. One would have been motivated to resolve an issue with or without human intervention because to allows to provide self-service solutions [Green; 0050].
providing at least one troubleshooting step to a human agent to assist the human agent with resolving the at least one potential fault if the at least one potential fault is not resolvable without human intervention, wherein the at least one troubleshooting step is based on the set of instructions;
Green discloses [0050] a chat-bot may provide instructions for potential resolution resource to the user so that they can resolve the issue themselves, if the issue cannot be resolved by the chat-bot. Green discloses providing troubleshooting, but fails to explicitly disclose the troubleshooting step is based on the set of instructions. Ramanasankaran discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0248] the output responses generated by the LLM can include suggested resolutions to any identified faults. The output response generated by the LLMs may include step-by-step (set of instructions), user-friendly guidance for technicians with varying degrees of experience.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suryanarayana, Stuchi, Sheppard, and Green with that of Ramanasankaran. One would have been motivated to provide a set of instructions for a troubleshooting step because it allows user-friendly guidance for users with varying degrees of experience [Ramanasankaran; 0248].
As per claim 7: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one potential fault is predicted by a machine learning model utilized by the remote chatbot.
Suryanarayana discloses [0023] the SLM is trained using labeled data to enable the SLM to predict solutions to computing-related issues.
As per claim 8: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the remote chatbot over the communication channel, a periodical report indicative of an overall health of the electronic device, wherein the overall health is predicted by a machine learning model utilized by the remote chatbot.
Suryanarayana discloses [0040] after gathering the scan data, the scan application may send the scan data to the server. In this way, by gathering the scan data, the server may identify which settings provide particular results. By correlating the configuration data with the logs, the server may identify which settings may cause issues and which settings may result in issue-free operation.
As per claims 9, 15, and 16: Although claims 9-13, 15, and 16 are directed towards a system claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the method claims 1, 7, and 8 above.
As per claim 17: Although claim 17 is directed towards a medium claim, it is rejected under the same rationale as the method claim 1 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana in view of Stuchi and further in view of Sheppard and further in view of Green and further in view of Ramanasankaran and further in view of Rodgers et al. (US 12,231,380 B1).
As per claim 6: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
evaluating a context of a conversation with a user to determine whether the context has changed during the conversation; and
if the context has changed: obtaining a revised set of operating procedures, wherein the revised set of operating procedures is either predicted by the remote chatbot or retrieved from at least one other embedded conversational AI agent;
providing the user with information identifying at least one of a new context of the conversation, at least one risk associated with the new context, or the revised set of standard operating procedures; and dynamically taking one or more actions or overriding one or more existing instruction sequences in accordance with the revised set of operating procedures if the at least one risk is resolvable without human intervention.
Suryanarayana, Stuchi, and Green disclose evaluating context of a conversation and providing a user with solutions, but fails to explicitly disclose determining whether context has changed during conversation and providing user with information identifying a new context of the conversation. Rodgers discloses a similar method, which further teaches [cols. 37 and 38] if a user changes the context of the chat, a revised set of instructions are provided to the user to present a report that enhances selected content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suryanarayana, Stuchi and Green with that of Rodgers. One would have been motivated to provide new instructions for new context because it allows to advance the service request towards resolution [col. 34, lines 50-56].
As per claim 14: Although claim 14 is directed towards a system claim, it is rejected under the same rationale as the method claim 6 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana in view of Stuchi and further in view of Sheppard and further in view of Green and further in view of Ramanasankaran and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2025/0005590 A1).
As per claim 21: The method of claim 1, wherein the reporting of the incident involving the at least one faulty components includes, sending an electronic communication identifying the at least one faulty components to a pre-determined address for customer service/technical support, receiving a tracking number assigned to the incident from the customer service/technical support, and providing the tracking number to the user.
Suryanarayana, Stuchi, Green, and Ramanasankaran disclose reporting the incident of faulty component to a remote server, but fail to explicitly disclose communicating with predetermined support and receiving a tracking number, and providing the tracking number to the user. Singh discloses a similar method, which further teaches [0024-0025] the service management system can receive an initial service request from the client device. The initial service request can identify a customer, a product, and an issue with the product. The record can include reference number, request time and date, customer identifier, customer contact information, product identifier, troubleshooting steps, troubleshooting results, resolution steps, and ticket information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Suryanarayana, Stuchi, Green, and Ramanasankaran with that of Singh. One would have been motivated to receive tracking number and assign to support because it allows to generate subsequent troubleshooting, resolution, and/or closure of the service request [Singh; 0025].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
· US 11,968,088 B1 – Yan discloses an interface between a user and LLM for a network configuration that satisfies the natural language intent in a declarative network configuration language.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGAR P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5067. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 10AM-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, Ashish Thomas, can be reached on 571-272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private 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.
/JIGAR P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights