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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the parent Application No. FR2213742, has been filed on 02/27/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023, 12/19/2023 and 12/18/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a method. The claim(s) recite(s) executing said at least one associated action depending on a result of at least one evaluation of said at least one management rule. With regards to, “one evaluation of said at least one management rule”, this limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Without any limitation narrowing the evaluation process or the management rule, human mind is capable of evaluating a management rule. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim recites, additional limitations directed to, A method for processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, said method being implemented by a processing device and comprising: obtaining, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action; and executing said at least one associated action depending on a result. With regards to the preamble, A method for processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, said method being implemented by a processing device and comprising, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (message processing) in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).With regards to obtaining, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). With regards to, executing said at least one associated action depending on a result, this limitation merely recites executing an action without reciting the nature of the action or the mechanism for executing the action. This amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites, additional limitations directed to, A method for processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, said method being implemented by a processing device and comprising: obtaining, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action; and executing said at least one associated action depending on a result. With regards to the preamble, A method for processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, said method being implemented by a processing device and comprising, this limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (message processing) in which to apply a judicial exception does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).With regards to obtaining, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this limitation does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). With regards to, executing said at least one associated action depending on a result, this limitation merely recites executing an action without reciting the nature of the action or the mechanism for executing the action. This amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 2 recites, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said evaluation of said at least one management rule is carried out depending on at least one context datum for said client. This limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Without any limitation narrowing the evaluation process or the management rule, human mind is capable of evaluating a management rule depending on a context datum. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform this determination does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 3 recites, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said at least one result is obtained from a second human-machine interface of said client after said at least one management rule is rendered through a first human-machine interface of said client. With regards to at least one result is obtained from a second human-machine interface of said client, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d).) With regards to “one management rule is rendered through a first human-machine interface of said client”, this limitation is directed to using a computer component in its ordinary capacity, i.e. to display data. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4 recites, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said at least one evaluation is conditioned by a result of a confirmation step performed by a user through a human-machine interface of said client. This limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation is directed to receiving confirmation from a user through a human-machine interface and performing evaluation based on the confirmation. With regards to, receiving confirmation from a user through a human-machine interface, this limitation is directed to using a computer component in its ordinary capacity, i.e. to receive human input through a human machine interface. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to performing evaluation based on the received data, this amounts to performing evaluation based on some data. Without any specific steps carried out in performance of the evaluation process, human mind under broadest reasonable interpretation is capable of performing evaluation based on some data. Therefore this limitation is directed to a mental process.
Claim 5 recites, The method according to Claim 1, wherein the obtaining further comprises obtaining at least one description datum for said at least one management rule. This limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found gathering data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d).)
Claim 6 recites, The method according to Claim 1, wherein the executing said at least one action is conditioned by a result of a confirmation step performed by a user through a human machine interface of said client. This limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation is directed to receiving confirmation from a user through a human-machine interface and executing said at least one action based on the confirmation. With regards to, receiving confirmation from a user through a human-machine interface, this limitation is directed to using a computer component in its ordinary capacity, i.e. to receive human input through a human machine interface. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). With regards to executing said at least one action based on the received data, this limitation merely recites executing an action without reciting the nature of the action or the mechanism for executing the action. This amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception and does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7 recites, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said message is Rich Communication Services (RCS) message which is compliant with the GSM Association (GSMA) FNW.11 standard. This limitation merely indicates a field of use environment (the GSM Association (GSMA) FNW.11 standard) in which to apply the judicial exception and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. Claim 8 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 8 recites, additional limitation directed to “at least one processor; and at least one computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor”. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 9 recites, The device according to Claim 8, wherein the device is implemented in a terminal comprising the electronic client. The term “terminal” under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as a computer. Therefore this limitation amounts to simply adding general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 10 recites, The device according to Claim 8, wherein the device is implemented in a vehicle comprising the electronic client. This limitation merely attempts to link the judicial exception to a technological environment of a vehicle. This amounts to a incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process step of evaluating one management rule performed. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. Claim 11 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore is also directed to an abstract idea for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 11 recites, additional limitation directed to “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program stored thereon comprising instructions for implementing a method”. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mumick (US20230262427A1)
Regarding claim 1,
Mumick teaches, A method for processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, said method being implemented by a processing device and comprising: (¶0097, ¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches user device processing message received from expanded reach rich messaging application (ERRMA))
obtaining, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action; and (¶0097 teaches, The messaging client 204 a on the user device 204 associated with the user's mobile number receives the transmitted rich message from expanded reach rich messaging application (ERRMA) as exemplarily illustrated in FIGS. 7A-9C. Also teaches, in an embodiment, a service provider verifies the identity of the entity, for example, a brand identity, included in the rich message. In an embodiment, the rich message further comprises one or more of multiple interactive buttons comprising, for example, a suggested reply button, a suggested action button, and an entity-specific action button.)
executing said at least one associated action depending on a result of at least one evaluation of said at least one management rule. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches user device sends user selection of suggested action)
Regarding claim 2,
Mumick teaches, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said evaluation of said at least one management rule is carried out depending on at least one context datum for said client. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches suggested action is carried out based on user selecting or tapping on the suggested action button displayed on GUI)
Regarding claim 3,
Mumick teaches, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said at least one result is obtained from a second human-machine interface of said client after said at least one management rule is rendered through a first human-machine interface of said client. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches suggested action is carried out after message is displayed on the GUI of the user device)
Regarding claim 4,
Mumick teaches, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said at least one evaluation is conditioned by a result of a confirmation step performed by a user through a human-machine interface of said client. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches suggested action is carried out based on user selecting or tapping on the suggested action button displayed on GUI of the user device)
Regarding claim 5,
Mumick teaches, The method according to Claim 1, wherein the obtaining further comprises obtaining at least one description datum for said at least one management rule. (¶0097 teaches, The transmitting module 202 e delivers the rich message from a verified sender identifier (ID), for example, Safe Screening as exemplarily illustrated in FIG. 7A, or from a sender ID generated by an entity that is sending the rich message, for example, “United Airlines”, “ALDI”, “MMA Connect”, “Newark Museum”, etc. In an embodiment, a service provider verifies the identity of the entity, for example, a brand identity, included in the rich message.)
Regarding claim 6,
Mumick teaches, The method according to Claim 1, wherein the executing said at least one action is conditioned by a result of a confirmation step performed by a user through a human- machine interface of said client. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches suggested action is carried out based on user selecting or tapping on the suggested action button displayed on GUI of the user device)
Regarding claim 7,
Mumick teaches, The method according to Claim 1, wherein said message is Rich Communication Services (RCS) message which is compliant with the GSM Association (GSMA) FNW.11 standard. (¶0016 teaches, an RCS Messaging as a Platform (MaaP) Chatbot API specified by Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) in the official document FNW.11)
Regarding claim 8,
Mumick teaches, A device for processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, wherein the device comprises: (¶0097, ¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches user device processing message received from expanded reach rich messaging application (ERRMA).)
at least one processor; and at least one computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor configure the device to: (¶0123 teaches, a processor and a “non-transitory, computer-readable storage media” also refer to any medium capable of storing or encoding a set of instructions for execution by a computer, a processor,)
obtain, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action; and (¶0097 teaches, The messaging client 204 a on the user device 204 associated with the user's mobile number receives the transmitted rich message from expanded reach rich messaging application (ERRMA) as exemplarily illustrated in FIGS. 7A-9C. Also teaches, in an embodiment, a service provider verifies the identity of the entity, for example, a brand identity, included in the rich message. In an embodiment, the rich message further comprises one or more of multiple interactive buttons comprising, for example, a suggested reply button, a suggested action button, and an entity-specific action button.)
execute said at least one associated action depending on a result of at least one evaluation of said at least one management rule. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches user device sends user selection of suggested action)
Regarding claim 9,
Mumick teaches, The device according to Claim 8, wherein the device is implemented in a terminal comprising the electronic client. (¶0066 teaches, The user device 204 comprises a messaging client 204 a installed thereon for receiving messages)
Regarding claim 11,
Mumick teaches, A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program stored thereon comprising instructions for implementing a method of processing a message received by an electronic client from a conversational agent, when the program is executed by a processor, wherein the method comprises: (¶0097, ¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches user device processing message received from expanded reach rich messaging application (ERRMA). ¶0123 teaches, a processor and a “non-transitory, computer-readable storage media” capable of storing or encoding a set of instructions for execution by a computer, a processor,))
obtaining, from said conversational agent, said message comprising at least one management rule and at least one associated action; and (¶0097 teaches, The messaging client 204 a on the user device 204 associated with the user's mobile number receives the transmitted rich message from expanded reach rich messaging application (ERRMA) as exemplarily illustrated in FIGS. 7A-9C. Also teaches, in an embodiment, a service provider verifies the identity of the entity, for example, a brand identity, included in the rich message. In an embodiment, the rich message further comprises one or more of multiple interactive buttons comprising, for example, a suggested reply button, a suggested action button, and an entity-specific action button.)
executing said at least one associated action depending on a result of at least one evaluation of said at least one management rule. (¶0098 and ¶0108-¶0109 teaches user device sends user selection of suggested action)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mumick (US20230262427A1) in view of Dow (US20240383364A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Mumick doesn’t teach, The device according to Claim 8, wherein the device is implemented in a vehicle comprising the electronic client. (Dow in ¶0055-¶0068 teaches a electric vehicle communication controller (EVCC) and a human-machine interface (HMI) 140 implemented in an electric vehicle 100 to communicate with an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) 200)
Dow is an art in the area of interest as it teaches, a method of communicating between an electric vehicle, a supply equipment, and a power grid (see Abstract). A combination of Dow with Mumick would allow the system to be implemented in a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Dow with Mumick. One would have been motivated to do so because by doing so would allow the system to exchange messages between an electric vehicle and a supply equipment, which would allow the system to establish an efficient billing policy for each time. Also, it is possible to provide credit or incentive to a vehicle user and an operator of a supply equipment that participate in CO2 emission regulation, as taught by Dow in ¶0366. Message based communication implemented in a vehicle is known in the art as evident by Dow. Claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allamsetty (US20230382259A1) in ¶0065 teaches, the charging station establishes a second network connection with the electric vehicle. The second network connection connects at least the charging station to the electric vehicle. The electric vehicle can also be connected to a backend network including the server, so that the charging station can communicate with the server via the electric vehicle. If the electric vehicle is not connected to the server (e.g., because the server is unavailable, because a common cellular network of the charging station and the electric vehicle is experiencing an outage) the charging station can await an electric vehicle having a connection, or can transfer the files to the electric vehicle for later transmission to the server, at another time or place. Upon receiving the data, the server can acknowledge such receipt by causing an acknowledgement to be delivered to the charging station (e.g., by sending directly, or via another network device).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116