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 .
Detail Action
On 03/21/2024, application 18/613,008 is filed with claims 1-20.
This is a Non-Final Action.
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 abstract idea/mental processes without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
…identifying a task request associated with the response data, wherein the task request comprises a subtask request; generating…a unified response associated with the task request, wherein the unified response comprises the response data;…; MPEP 2106.04(a);
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
receiving, by smart compiler circuitry, response data that is representative of one or more AI system outputs … receiving, by smart compiler circuitry, response data that is representative of one or more AI system outputs; MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
determining, by the smart compiler circuitry and based on the response data, an AI system server that transmitted the response data; determining, by the smart compiler circuitry and based on the response data, timing data that is representative of a response time interval associated with the response data; determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, that the response data comprises a complete response to one or more subtask requests; determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, that the response data is clean from one or more of data errors, corrupt data, or malicious data; and generating, by the smart compiler circuitry, log entry data comprising one or more of the response data, the task request, the AI system server, the timing data, response completeness data, cleanliness data, and the user device; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
detecting, by the smart compiler circuitry, a failed response indication associated with the task request and an AI system server, wherein the failed response indication is detected based on one or more of (i) determining that the response data is incomplete, (ii) determining that the response data is corrupt, or (iii) determining that the response data was not received within a response time threshold; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 4 is dependent on claims 1 and 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 3.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein receiving the response data further comprises causing, by the communications hardware, transmission of the task request associated with the failed response indication to one or more of an AI system backup server or smart router circuitry; and wherein generating the unified response further comprises generating a partial unified response to the task request, wherein the partial unified response comprises an error notification indicating to the user device that, at least in part, the task request was unsuccessful; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 3, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, a logical sequence for integrating the response data into the unified response to the task request, wherein determining the logical sequence is based on one or more of a predefined rule, a response compiler model, or a real-time analysis of a user interface of the user device; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
wherein generating the unified response further comprises: integrating, by the smart compiler circuitry and based on a logical sequence, the response data into the unified response comprising a response format; and determining, by the smart compiler circuitry and using one or more optimization algorithms, that the unified response is within one or more of a maximum size threshold or a format parameter threshold; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, that the task request includes contextual data comprising one or more of a user identifier, a device identifier, session data, or timestamp data; and integrating, by the smart compiler circuitry, the contextual data of the task request into the unified response; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 8-14 are directed to an apparatus comprises the steps which the at least one process platform of the method of claims 1-7 are configured to perform. Claims 8-14 recite the same limitations as claims 1-7, respectively; therefore, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of an apparatus without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-7. See above.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer program product comprises the steps which the at least one process platform of the method of claims 1-6 are configured to perform. Claims 15-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1-6, respectively; therefore, claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a computer program product without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-6. See above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sridhara US Publication 2021/0304139.
18/613,008
Sridhara US Publication 2021/0304139
Claim 1
A method for compiling AI system outputs into unified responses, the method comprising:
Sridhara teaches a machine-learning model; p0005
receiving, by smart compiler circuitry, response data that is representative of one or more AI system outputs;
Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036: the system receives a process flow diagram element of a process flow diagram. The process flow diagram represents a process flow having a plurality of steps for performing a process. A process may be any type of process that may be defined using a process map, process flow diagram, or procedure steps. For example, a process may be related to a service provided by an entity, for example, loan approvals, vehicle registrations, invoice processing, infrastructure or building planning, scheduling, or the like. As another example, a process may be related to a method or steps that are carried out by an entity (e.g., user, corporation, etc.). For example, a process may be related to steps for withdrawing money from an automated teller machine (ATM), the steps required for hiring a new employee, or the like.
identifying, by the smart compiler circuitry, a task request associated with the response data, wherein the task request comprises a subtask request;
Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036: Srihara teaches identify subtask with the process flow diagram also includes swimlanes, each associated with the entity that would perform the tasks associated with the elements included in the corresponding swimlane.
generating, by the smart compiler circuitry, a unified response associated with the task request, wherein the unified response comprises the response data; and causing, by communications hardware, transmission of the unified response to a user device associated with the task request.
Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036: Sridhara teaches the system may notify a user of the mismatch and present the predicted features of the target element for analysis by the user.
Sridhara teaches communicate to user device; p0041: Computer system/server 12′ may also communicate with at least one external device 14′ such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a display 24′, etc.; at least one device that enables a user to interact with computer system/server 12′; and/or any devices (e.g., network card, modem, etc.) that enable computer system/server 12′ to communicate with at least one other computing device. Such communication can occur via I/O interfaces 22′. Still yet, computer system/server 12′ can communicate with at least one network such as a local area network (LAN), a general wide area network (WAN), and/or a public network (e.g., the Internet) via network adapter 20′. As depicted, network adapter 20′ communicates with the other components of computer system/server 12′ via bus 18′. It should be understood that although not shown, other hardware and/or software components could be used in conjunction with computer system/server 12′. Examples include, but are not limited to: microcode, device drivers, redundant processing units, external disk drive arrays, RAID systems, tape drives, and data archival storage systems, etc
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the unified response further comprises: determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, a logical sequence for integrating the response data into the unified response to the task request, wherein determining the logical sequence is based on one or more of a predefined rule, a response compiler model, or a real-time analysis of a user interface of the user device.
Sridhara teaches the system encodes features of the target element into a semantic or feature vector. While a single element is discussed herein, it should be understood that the encoding may occur across some or all elements within the model. The features for the vector are identified from the context of the target element. Accordingly, a single element may be included in more than vector since the vectors are generated from the context surrounding a target element and that context may include other elements. The features included in the vector may include any of the contextual information and, thus, may include features like element type, swimlane, milestone, text, and the like. The vector is generated from a set of contiguous elements within the process flow diagram, with the elements surrounding the target element making up at least a portion of the context for the target element. Each element within the vector includes the information associated with that element, for example, the swimlane, milestone, text, parts-of-speech analysis, element type, and the like. To encode the features into a vector, the system may utilize an encoder that produces a hidden state that is a representation of the features within each element; p0021-pp0037.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the unified response further comprises: integrating, by the smart compiler circuitry and based on a logical sequence, the response data into the unified response comprising a response format; and determining, by the smart compiler circuitry and using one or more optimization algorithms, that the unified response is within one or more of a maximum size threshold or a format parameter threshold.
Sridhara teaches The calculated similarity results in a score that can be compared to a threshold similarity score value. This threshold value may be set by a user or a default value. A similarity score meeting or exceeding the threshold value indicates that the target semantic vector is similar to the semantic vector to which it is being compared. The system can then return this vector, represented as process flow diagram elements, a portion of the process flow diagram, or the entirety of the process flow diagram, to the user who provided the query; see Sridhara p0030-p0036.
As per claims 8, 12, and 13; 15, 19, and 20; they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, 5 and 6. See rejection above.
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, 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 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhara US Publication 2021/0304139 in view of Peter et al. US Publication 2020/0004710.
18/613,008
Sridhara US Publication 2021/0304139 in view of Peter et al. US Publication 2020/0004710
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the response data further comprises:
determining, by the smart compiler circuitry and based on the response data, an AI system server that transmitted the response data;
determining, by the smart compiler circuitry and based on the response data, timing data that is representative of a response time interval associated with the response data;
Sridhara teaches a machine-learning model; p0005; Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036;
Sridhar does not specifically teach response time;
Peter teaches using response data, and timing data; (see Peter p0127-p0135)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Peter’s teaching with method of Sridhar in order to predict the threshold needs to decrease if a merchant contract is ending.
determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, that the response data comprises a complete response to one or more subtask requests; determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, that the response data is clean from one or more of data errors, corrupt data, or malicious data; and
Sridhara teaches a machine-learning model; p0005; Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036;
Peter teaches using response data, and timing data; (see Peter p0127-p0135)
Sridhara does not specifically teaches clean from data errors.
Peter teaches determine conversation rate is operate at a desired threshold. See Peter p0117-p0122;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Peter’s teaching with method of Sridhar in order to allow the decisions can be added to embedded routines so that the system can independently make decisions.
generating, by the smart compiler circuitry, log entry data comprising one or more of the response data, the task request, the AI system server, the timing data, response completeness data, cleanliness data, and the user device.
Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036;
Peter p0117-p0135)
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the response data further comprises:
detecting, by the smart compiler circuitry, a failed response indication associated with the task request and an AI system server, wherein the failed response indication is detected based on one or more of
(i) determining that the response data is incomplete,
(ii) determining that the response data is corrupt, or
(iii) determining that the response data was not received within a response time threshold.
Sridhara does not specifically teach clean from data errors.
Peter teaches determine conversation rate is operate at a desired threshold. See Peter p0117-p0122;
Peter taches error conditions, and environment error; see Peter p0100-p151.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Peter’s teaching with method of Sridhar in order to allow the decisions can be added to embedded routines so that the system can independently make decisions.
Claim 4
The method of claim 3, wherein receiving the response data further comprises causing, by the communications hardware, transmission of the task request associated with the failed response indication to one or more of an AI system backup server or smart router circuitry; and
wherein generating the unified response further comprises generating a partial unified response to the task request, wherein the partial unified response comprises an error notification indicating to the user device that, at least in part, the task request was unsuccessful.
Sridhara does not specifically teach clean from data errors.
Peter teaches determine conversation rate is operate at a desired threshold. See Peter p0117-p0122;
Peter taches error conditions, and environment error; see Peter p0100-p151.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Peter’s teaching with method of Sridhar in order to allow the decisions can be added to embedded routines so that the system can independently make decisions.
Claim 7
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the unified response further comprises: determining, by the smart compiler circuitry, that the task request includes contextual data comprising one or more of a user identifier, a device identifier, session data, or timestamp data; and integrating, by the smart compiler circuitry, the contextual data of the task request into the unified response.
Sridhara teaches a machine-learning model; p0005; Sridhara Fig. 1-2 p0021-p0036;
Sridhar does not specifically teach response time;
Peter teaches using response data, and timing data; (see Peter p0127-p0135)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Peter’s teaching with method of Sridhar in order to predict the threshold needs to decrease if a merchant contract is ending.
As per claims 9-11 and 14; they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2-4 and 7. See rejection above.
As per claims 16-18; they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2-4. See rejection above.
Related Prior Art
Here is a list of reference relateing to task management system:
Aerni US Patent 11,983,650: Methods, systems, apparatuses, devices, and computer program products are described. An intelligent routing system may route a data object to a path in a process flow using a model, such as a machine-learned model. The system may receive a first data object and may route the first data object along a path of the process flow using a random routing procedure, for example, for model training. The routing may involve performing operations based on the path and the features of the first data object. The system may update one or more models based on an outcome of the operations. Following training, the system may insert a model into the process flow at a decision point between paths. The system may receive a second data object and may route the second data object to a path using the model and based on features of the second data object.
Etkin et al US Publication 20200401938: A method may include applying, to a corpus of data, a first machine learning technique to identify candidate domains of an ontology mapping brain structure to mental function. The corpus of data may include textual data describing a plurality of mental functions and spatial data corresponding to a plurality of brain structures. A second machine technique may be applied to optimize a quantity of domains included in the ontology and/or a quantity of mental function terms included in each domain. The ontology may be applied to phenotype an electronic medical record and predict a clinical outcome for a patient associated with the electronic medical record. Related systems and articles of manufacture, including computer program products, are also provided.
Anbazhagan US Publication 20180143967: A natural language understanding model is trained using respective natural language example inputs corresponding to a plurality of applications. A determination is made as to whether a value of a first parameter of a first application is to be obtained using a natural language interaction. Using the natural language understanding model, at least a portion of the first application is generated.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights