DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/16/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TeBooij et al. (USPGP 2023/0208971 A1), hereinafter TEBOOIJ, in view of Williams et al. (USPGP 2024/0281410 A1), hereinafter WILLIAMS.
Claims 1, 8, 15:
TEBOOIJ as shown below discloses the following limitations:
initiating a conversation between a chat bot and a user device, (see at least paragraph 0049)
wherein the initiating comprises:
allocating a plurality of resources to maintain the conversation, (see at least paragraphs 0076, 0087)
generating a first state entry in a storage system, the first state entry being configured to store interactions between the user device and the chat bot, wherein the first state entry comprises a timeout period, (see at least paragraph 0077)
generating a first master entry in the storage system, the first master entry corresponding to the first state entry and storing metadata associated with the first state entry, wherein the storage system stores a plurality of state entries including the first state entry and a plurality of master entries including the first master entry; (see at least paragraph 0077)
retrieving a first list of the plurality of master entries; (see at least paragraph 0072)
deallocating one or more of the resources allocated to maintaining the conversation based on the determination that the conversation has exceeded the timeout period.
TEBOOIJ does not specifically disclose:
retrieving a second list of the plurality of master entries for which a corresponding one of the plurality of state entries comprises an unexpired timeout period;
generating a third list of one or more of the plurality of master entries based on removing the second list from the first list, wherein the third list comprises the one or more of the plurality of master entries for which the timeout period has expired;
determining that the first master entry is on the third list;
determining that the conversation has exceeded the timeout period based on the determination that the first master entry is on the third list;
However, WILLIAMS, in at least paragraphs 0057, 0153, 0199-0200, and 0249 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of TEBOOIJ with the technique of WILLIAMS because, “Conventional systems for enabling marketing and sales activities for a business user do not also respectively enable support and service interactions with customers, notwithstanding that the same individuals are typically involved in all of those activities for a business, transitioning in status from prospect, to customer, to user. While marketing activities, sales activities, and service activities strongly influence the success of each other, businesses are required to undertake complex and time-consuming tasks to obtain relevant information for one activity from the others, such as forming queries, using complicated APIs, or otherwise extracting data from separate databases, networks, or other information technology systems (some on premises and others in the cloud), transforming data from one native format to another suitable form for use in a different environment, synchronizing different data sources when changes are made in different databases, normalizing data, cleansing data, and configuring it for use.” (WILLIAMS: paragraphs 0012). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 4, 11, 18:
The combination of TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. WILLIAMS further discloses the following limitations:
generating a hash value for the conversation; and associating the hash value with both the first state entry and the first master entry.
See at least paragraph 0773. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of TEBOOIJ with the technique of WILLIAMS because, “Conventional systems for enabling marketing and sales activities for a business user do not also respectively enable support and service interactions with customers, notwithstanding that the same individuals are typically involved in all of those activities for a business, transitioning in status from prospect, to customer, to user. While marketing activities, sales activities, and service activities strongly influence the success of each other, businesses are required to undertake complex and time-consuming tasks to obtain relevant information for one activity from the others, such as forming queries, using complicated APIs, or otherwise extracting data from separate databases, networks, or other information technology systems (some on premises and others in the cloud), transforming data from one native format to another suitable form for use in a different environment, synchronizing different data sources when changes are made in different databases, normalizing data, cleansing data, and configuring it for use.” (WILLIAMS: paragraphs 0012). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20:
The combination of TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. WILLIAMS further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the deallocating comprises:
providing a notification to the user device indicating that the conversation has expired.
wherein the notification includes an option to begin a new conversation.
See at least paragraph 0773. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of TEBOOIJ with the technique of WILLIAMS because, “Conventional systems for enabling marketing and sales activities for a business user do not also respectively enable support and service interactions with customers, notwithstanding that the same individuals are typically involved in all of those activities for a business, transitioning in status from prospect, to customer, to user. While marketing activities, sales activities, and service activities strongly influence the success of each other, businesses are required to undertake complex and time-consuming tasks to obtain relevant information for one activity from the others, such as forming queries, using complicated APIs, or otherwise extracting data from separate databases, networks, or other information technology systems (some on premises and others in the cloud), transforming data from one native format to another suitable form for use in a different environment, synchronizing different data sources when changes are made in different databases, normalizing data, cleansing data, and configuring it for use.” (WILLIAMS: paragraphs 0012). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS and further in view of Examiner’s OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17:
The combination of TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS does not specifically disclose:
wherein the timeout period corresponds to a maximum idle period during which no entry is received by the chatbot from the user device.
wherein the timeout period corresponds to a maximum length of time for the conversation between the chat bot and the user device.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the online communication arts to distinguish inactive periods of time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS with the technique of setting maximum limits on inactive time because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 7, 14:
The combination of TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS does not specifically disclose:
wherein the storage system comprises a REDIS (remote dictionary server) storage system.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the high-performance database arts to utilize the REDIS systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of TEBOOIJ/WILLIAMS with the technique of a high-performance in-memory data structure store used because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Genesys Engage. “Workspace Desktop Edition. Chat Interaction.” (August 25, 2021). Retrieved online 02/27/2026. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjgicTnofqSAxV2L1kFHaehNYAQFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.genesys.com%2FDocumentation%2FIW%2Flatest%2FHelp%2FChat_Interaction&usg=AOvVaw3oOVr8OjNeFzeAXYYDXBy2&opi=89978449
Pega Platform. “Managing session timeouts.” (October 31, 2023). Retrieved online 02/27/2026.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjMofvMqfqSAxWXF1kFHY5GKaMQFnoECB4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.pega.com%2Fbundle%2Fplatform%2Fpage%2Fplatform%2Fuser-experience%2Fmanaging-session-timeouts.html&usg=AOvVaw16lpDaydcb2mBuNuUhxMcD&opi=89978449
Jacob Firuta. “Understanding Chat assignment.” (Sep 12, 2023). Retrieved online 02/27/2026. Understanding chat assignment | LiveChat Help Center | LiveChat.com
Foreign Art:
MU et al. “Large Language Model And Enhanced Learning Based Intelligent Customer Service System, Has Knowledge Management Sub-system For Maintaining Knowledge Needed In Customer Service Response Process, And Monitoring Display Sub-system For Displaying Session Experience And New Knowledge.” (CN 121051202 A)
BETTERSWORTH et al. “Method Of Machine-interpreting Freeform Text, Involves Revising Best-match Grammar-based Metadata Based On Automatically Generated Topic-based Metadata.” (WO 2017/019705 A1)
BEILBY et al. “CHATBOTS.” (WO 2010/078614 A1)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)