DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 17 February 2026. Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12, 17, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12, 17, and 19-20 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment is insufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The rejection remains pending and is updated below, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. The rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly Applicant’s assertion that the prior art of record fails to teach or otherwise disclose “selecting for each message a highest-priority satisfied rule from among the plurality of rule-based criteria.” See Arguments at page 15. Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 12) in view of the prior art of record and the updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is updated and detailed below. The prior art rejection is respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the amended independent claim recites a technical solution to the computer-centric problem of automatically disentangling multi-threaded collaborative-channel conversations, generating summaries, and enabling incident mitigation within an incident management system by utilizing a separating operation in which the processor applies multiple rule-based criteria to each message of the composite conversation, determines which rule is satisfied with the highest priority, and separates the message based on that rule in a manner that does not recite a mental process or any other judicial exception. Applicant further asserts that the claim recites additional elements that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by requiring the population of the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system in response to an API call and mitigating an incident request using the incident management system based on the final coherent interaction summary. Applicant lastly asserts that the claims as a whole are directed to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As detailed in the Advisory Action mailed 29 January 2026, while the claim limitations further narrow the inventive concept, the claims fail to specify how the issue mitigation is performed in a manner that is a practical application of the technical elements or an improvement to the underlying technology used to implement the abstract idea. The newly recited limitation "wherein the separating comprises applying a plurality of rule-based criteria to each message of the composite conversation" is part of the abstract idea of receiving and manipulating data based on rules and does not provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Data can be clustered and separated based on rules mentally or through the use of pen and paper.
The newly recited limitation "populating, using the at least one hardware processor and in response to an application programming interface (API), the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system" is part of the abstract idea of analyzing and manipulating data input to generate an output. The API additional element is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Using an API for implementing the functionality of the populating step does not amount to implementing the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture, effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. There is nothing about the combination of a hardware processor, a collaborative channel, and use of an API beyond the individual benefits from each of these technological requirements.
Unlike the limitations of Example 40 wherein the results of the analysis were used to detect and abnormal condition and modifying the collection of data to avoid excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance, the data collected herein is merely processed according to specific business rules to generate the final coherent interaction summary, without significantly more. The claims herein are more analogous to those of Claim 2 of Example 40 wherein the claims are directed to mere data gathering steps that automate the comparison of data without significantly more than the recited insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is proper and maintained.
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 an abstract idea of gathering communication/interaction data, analyzing the data, and creating a summary of the data, without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a process, independent claim 10 recites a product, and independent claim 12 recites a device for obtaining composite conversations from a collaborative channel and creating an interaction summary. Independent claims 1, 10, and 12 recite substantially similar limitations.
Under Step 1, independent claims 1, 10, and 12 recite at least one step or act, including separating independent conversations within the composite conversation. Thus the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Taking independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations:
obtaining, using at least one hardware processor, a composite conversation from a collaborative channel;
separating, using the at least one hardware processor, independent conversations within the composite conversation, wherein the separating comprises applying a plurality of rule-based criteria to each message of the composite conversation, selecting for each message a highest-priority satisfied rule from among the plurality of rule-based criteria, and separating each message in accordance with the selected rule;
determining, using the at least one hardware processor, an intent of each message in each of the independent conversations;
clustering together, using the at least one hardware processor, messages of each of the independent conversations having a same issue intent to form corresponding artifact clusters;
generating, using the at least one hardware processor, a summary for each artifact cluster;
combining, using the at least one hardware processor, the summaries of the artifact clusters;
creating, using the at least one hardware processor, a final coherent interaction summary based on the artifact clusters;
populating, using the at least one hardware processor and in response to an application programming interface (API) call, the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system; and
mitigating, using the incident management system, an incident request based on the final coherent interaction summary.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the limitations of claim 1 for obtaining a composite conversation, separating independent conversation based on rules, determining an intent, clustering messages of a same intent, generating a summary for each cluster, combining the summaries, creating a final summary, populating the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system, and mitigating an incident request, as drafted, illustrates a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (comparing or categorizing information, and applying rules and mental observation and judgment to determine intent and summarization of conversation content) because none of the additional elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Therefore, the limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, obtaining a composite conversation is insignificant extra solution data gathering activity, because the step merely provides input for the recited data processing steps.
The inventive concept is directed to managing customer service relationships and aggregating service data to create a summary for reconfiguring a network-based computer system, and is construed as steps of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including commercial or legal interaction to carry out a legal obligation, and following rules or instructions), which are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, The judicial exception of claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, he claims only recite a processor and storage device for performing the recited steps. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0072] states: “PROCESSOR SET 110 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future.” Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions, such as data gathering, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Per paragraph [0044] of Applicant’s Specification “Once the summary is prepared, it is automatically utilized to populate the close notes, streamlining the incident reporting process and ensuring that essential information is captured effectively. The close notes will also be utilized by predictive algorithms for change risk assessment and code risk assessment, as well as for explaining the risk score.” Per paragraph [0048] “The prepared final coherent interaction summary 220 is presented to an expert 216-1, 216-2 to receive feedback on its quality (such as a good summary or a bad summary) (operation 628). … A given incident request is mitigated using the interaction summary (operation 636). For example, an incident request regarding a server failure may be remedied by implementing resolution steps described in the interaction summary. ” The specification does not disclose how the network-based computer system is reconfigured based on the final coherent interaction summary. As a result, the reconfiguring step is construed as a step that is performed by a user implementing steps described in the interaction summary. While the claimed processor is used to cluster independent conversations to generate a final summary for use in resolving computer system and network issues, the claimed steps could be performed by a human “Site Reliability Engineer” mentally or through use of a pen and paper by comparing and analyzing issue resolution data generated by others to determine and document the most sufficient resolution. Because the claims fall short of automated resolution of an identified or submitted issue, the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The limitation "wherein the separating comprises applying a plurality of rule-based criteria to each message of the composite conversation" is part of the abstract idea of receiving and manipulating data based on rules and does not provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Data can be clustered and separated based on rules mentally or through the use of pen and paper.
The limitation "populating, using the at least one hardware processor and in response to an application programming interface (API), the final coherent interaction summary into an incident management system" is part of the abstract idea of analyzing and manipulating data input to generate an output. The API additional element is used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Using an API for implementing the functionality of the populating step does not amount to implementing the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture, effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. There is nothing about the combination of a hardware processor, a collaborative channel, and use of an API beyond the individual benefits from each of these technological requirements.
Further, the step for “mitigating, using the incident management system, an incident request based on the final coherent interaction summary” is construed as an intended result of the data collection, analysis, and summarization steps because the claim fails to detail how the recited mitigation is executed. As a result, the output of the summarization is construed to be interpreted by a human agent for business decision making purposes, and not as an automated machine implemented technical solution to a technical problem. Accordingly, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Specification does not provide additional details about the computer system/server that would distinguish it from any generic processing devices that communicate with one another in a network environment. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and storage device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-20 include the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The limitations of the dependent claims merely narrow the mental process abstract idea by describing the how data is gathered and manipulated to generate the summary for each artifact cluster. The limitations of the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. There are no additional elements that transform the claim into a patent eligible idea by amounting to significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly independent claims 10 and 12 and the claims that depend therefrom are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis applied to claim 1 above. Therefore claims 1 - 20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but the claims would be allowable if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
Examiner analyzed amended Claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 12) in view of the prior art of record and the updated prior art search and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claims 1, 10, and 12 can only be found as recited in Applicant’s specification, any combination of the prior art of record and/or additional references to teach all the claim elements would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of the prior art of record and any of the additional references would be improper to teach the claimed invention. As a result, claims 1-34 are eligible over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
de Mazancourt (US 11,095,579) – Methods and apparatus for summarizing a chatbot interaction with a user are provided. The method comprises using at least one computer hardware processor to perform generating an initial summary based, at least in part, on user data, receiving first input from the user during the chatbot interaction, processing the first input with a natural language processing engine, updating the initial summary based, at least in part, on an output of the processing by the natural language processing engine to generate an updated summary, wherein the updating is performed prior to completion of the chatbot interaction, and outputting a final summary of the chatbot interaction, wherein the final summary of the chatbot interaction is based, at least in part, on the updated summary.
Gunasekara et al. (US 2023/0079879) – system includes a processor to receive a summary of a conversation to be generated. The processor can input the summary into a trained summary-grounded conversation generator. The processor can receive a generated conversation from the trained summary-grounded conversation generator. embodiments of the present disclosure enable different conversations to be generated from the same summary. The generated conversations can be used to augment datasets used for training conversation summarizers. In particular, once a conversation summarization dataset is augmented with the generated conversations, the performance of the downstream summarization task networks trained on the augmented conversation summarization dataset may be improved.
El Hattami et al. (US 2024/0378393) – obtaining a chat dialog including a first question and a first action; obtaining, from a natural language model, an utterance based on the first question and an input parameter associated with the utterance; obtaining, from the natural language model, program code for performing the first action on a computing system, wherein the program code is based on a textual description of the first action and specification of a variable defined by the computing system in which to store the input parameter; and generating a virtual agent to perform the first action on the computing system using the program code.
Farmaner et al. (US 2013/0246392) - receiving an input in a context, returning a result in respect of the received context by at least one of reducing, relaxing, and location handling in respect of the input value, and performing an operation based upon the context of the input criteria. Reducing comprises narrowing the total number of results by their contextual relevance, wherein the narrowing is comprised in dynamically generated real-time interactions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LETORIA G KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-0485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rutao WU can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/L.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623