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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a coaching simulator system” (i.e. a machine), claim 9 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 16 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “simulating a coaching session,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“receiving an interaction between a customer and an agent;
scoring the interaction using an evaluation form;
identifying a recurring improvement area for the agent based on the scored interaction and past scored interactions;
creating a prompt for a large language model (LLM) by populating a prompt template with a definition of the evaluation form, evaluation questions, a simulation objective, and a simulation example, wherein the definition of the evaluation form, the evaluation questions, the simulation objective and the simulation example are based on the recurring improvement area;
providing a framework to invoke the LLM using the created prompt, a model, and a plurality of hyperparameters;
starting a first coaching simulation scenario by invoking the LLM, via the framework, to present a first question to the agent;
receiving a first answer to the first question from the agent;
querying the LLM, via the framework, to analyze the first answer to the first question; and
querying the LLM, via the framework, to provide real-time feedback and a score for the agent based on the analyzed first answer to the first question.”
Per claim 9:
“receiving an interaction between a customer and an agent;
scoring the interaction using an evaluation form;
identifying a recurring improvement area for the agent based on the scored interaction and past scored interactions;
creating a prompt for a large language model (LLM) by populating a prompt template with a definition of the evaluation form, evaluation questions, a simulation objective, and a simulation example, wherein the definition of the evaluation form, the evaluation questions, the simulation objective and the simulation example are based on the recurring improvement area;
providing a framework to invoke the LLM using the created prompt, a model, and a plurality of hyperparameters;
starting a first coaching simulation scenario by invoking the LLM, via the framework, to present a first question to the agent;
receiving a first answer to the first question from the agent;
querying the LLM, via the framework, to analyze the first answer to the first question; and
querying the LLM, via the framework, to provide real-time feedback and a score for the agent based on the analyzed first answer to the first question.”
Per claim 16:
“receiving an interaction between a customer and an agent;
scoring the interaction using an evaluation form;
identifying a recurring improvement area for the agent based on the scored interaction and past scored interactions;
creating a prompt for a large language model (LLM) by populating a prompt template with a definition of the evaluation form, evaluation questions, a simulation objective, and a simulation example, wherein the definition of the evaluation form, the evaluation questions, the simulation objective and the simulation example are based on the recurring improvement area;
providing a framework to invoke the LLM using the created prompt, a model, and a plurality of hyperparameters;
starting a first coaching simulation scenario by invoking the LLM, via the framework, to present a first question to the agent;
receiving a first answer to the first question from the agent;
querying the LLM, via the framework, to analyze the first answer to the first question; and
querying the LLM, via the framework, to provide real-time feedback and a score for the agent based on the analyzed first answer to the first question.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a processor” and “a computer readable medium,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “simulating a coaching session,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a processor” and “a computer readable medium,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Moreover, the element of “a processor” is described in para. [0090] as follows:
“[0090] Referring now to FIG. 11, illustrated is a block diagram of a system 1100 suitable for implementing embodiments of the present disclosure. System 1100, such as part of a computer and/or a network server, includes a bus 1102 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, which interconnects subsystems and components, including one or more of a processing component 1104 (e.g., processor, micro-controller, digital signal processor (DSP), etc.), a system memory component 1106 (e.g., RAM), a static storage component 1108 (e.g., ROM), a network interface component 1112, a display component 1114 (or alternatively, an interface to an external display), an input component 1116 (e.g., keypad or keyboard), and a cursor control component 1118 (e.g., a mouse pad).”
Likewise, the element of “a computer readable medium,” is described in para. [0092] as follows:
“[0092] Logic may be encoded in a computer readable medium, which may refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 1104 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile media, and transmission media. In various implementations, volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as system memory component 1106, and transmission media includes coaxial cables, copper wire, and fiber optics, including wires that comprise bus 1102. Memory may be used to store visual representations of the different options for searching or auto-synchronizing. In one example, transmission media may take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio wave and infrared data communications. Some common forms of computer readable media include, for example, RAM, PROM, EPROM, FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, carrier wave, or any other medium from which a computer is adapted to read.”
These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 9 or 16. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 recites “A coaching simulator system comprising: a processor and a computer readable medium operably coupled thereto…” The specification as originally filed does not provide that “a computer readable medium” can only be of a non-transitory embodiment. Though one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this limitation includes elements such as a hard-drive, the limitation also encompasses transitory elements such as data signals and carrier waves, which are non-statutory per se. As the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim includes non-statutory embodiments, the claim is rejected as being non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being non-statutory subject matter. Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0200491 to Anwade, et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Anwade”). However, Anwade does not explicitly teach: “identifying a recurring improvement area for the agent based on the scored interaction and past scored interactions; creating a prompt for a large language model (LLM) by populating a prompt template with a definition of the evaluation form, evaluation questions, a simulation objective, and a simulation example, wherein the definition of the evaluation form, the evaluation questions, the simulation objective and the simulation example are based on the recurring improvement area; providing a framework to invoke the LLM using the created prompt, a model, and a plurality of hyperparameters; starting a first coaching simulation scenario by invoking the LLM, via the framework, to present a first question to the agent; receiving a first answer to the first question from the agent; querying the LLM, via the framework, to analyze the first answer to the first question; and querying the LLM, via the framework, to provide real-time feedback and a score for the agent based on the analyzed first answer to the first question,” per claim 1, or substantially similar limitations in claims 9 and 16. Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715