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 .
Applicant’s submission dated 03/25/2024 has been received and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in Application 18/614,790.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Claim 17 is drawn to a "computer-readable storage medium". The specification does not completely exclude transitory media. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), and therefore claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101. Dependent claims 18-20 are also rejected under the same rationale. Applicant is advised to amend the claim language to explicitly recite a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
5. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that may be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited generic computer elements (memory, processor, chat, device medium) do not add a meaningful limitation to the practice of the abstract idea and merely apply the mental process on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no element of the claims would preclude their performance as a mental process. Essentially, the claims are drawn to a process of determining whether a response of an AI chatbot is suitable and if not, bringing in a second AI chatbot to provide a new response. This procedure mirrors that commonly performed by human beings in customer service environments, where supervisors or subject matter experts step in to provide responses when the first line representatives are unable to do so.
The limitations “execute an interaction event…” “determine that a related response…” “execute a second AI model…” and “output the new chatbot response…” as drafted cover mental activities which can be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Taken individually, or as a whole, these limitations describe acts which are equivalent to human mental work in a customer service environment.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be performed mentally, and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are therefore not patent eligible.
The additional claim elements of the remaining dependent claims (methods of determining poor responses based on user feedback or lack thereof, repeating the user’s request, migrating to a third chatbot, differences in training algorithms) are also effectively mental processes and similarly are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore are similarly rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhakov (US 2025/0071211 A1) in view of Ashktorab (“Resilient Chatbots: Repair Strategy Preferences for Conversational Breakdowns”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Zhakov discloses 1. An apparatus (Zhakov: Paragraph [0020], “The system and method of the disclosed embodiments includes a set of services that can be hosted on one or more cloud servers”)/method (Zhakov: Paragraph [0020], “The system and method of the disclosed embodiments includes a set of services that can be hosted on one or more cloud servers”)/computer-readable storage medium comprising/comprising instructions stored therein which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform (Zhakov: Paragraph [0020], inherent in “The system and method of the disclosed embodiments includes a set of services that can be hosted on one or more cloud servers” and Paragraph [0045], “”AI model being powered by one or more processors”):
a memory (Zhakov: Paragraph [0020], inherent in “The system and method of the disclosed embodiments includes a set of services that can be hosted on one or more cloud servers” and Paragraph [0045], “”AI model being powered by one or more processors”);
and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to (Zhakov: Paragraph [0020], inherent in “The system and method of the disclosed embodiments includes a set of services that can be hosted on one or more cloud servers” and Paragraph [0045], “”AI model being powered by one or more processors”):
execute an interaction event of an account device and a chatbot within a chat element based on chatbot responses determined by an artificial intelligence (AI) model (Zhakov: Claim 1, “receiving a first request from a customer during a customer service session; providing a first response to the first request generated by a first AI model”, and Claim 4, “ the customer service session is a text-based customer service session occurring in one or more chat windows”),
wherein the interaction event comprises an exchange of content between the account device and the chatbot through the chat element (Zhakov: Claim 1, “receiving a first request from a customer during a customer service session; providing a first response to the first request generated by a first AI model”, and Claim 4, “ the customer service session is a text-based customer service session occurring in one or more chat windows”; it is understood that the customer is using a device to access the chat session),
determine that a related response to the content has not been output by the chatbot within the chat element (Zhakov: Paragraph [0040], “Following a threshold number of responses exceeding a pre-determined threshold number of incorrect or inaccurate responses, a new AI model can be assigned to take over responsibility for the interaction”, and Paragraph [0045], “performance thresholds include a lack accuracy and/or a detected negative emotional response by the customer indicative of low customer service satisfaction levels”),
in response, execute a second AI model on the content received from the account device within the chat element to generate a new chatbot response (Zhakov: Paragraph [0040], “Following a threshold number of responses exceeding a pre-determined threshold number of incorrect or inaccurate responses, a new AI model can be assigned to take over responsibility for the interaction”, and Claim 1, “activating the second AI model”), and
output the new chatbot response within the chat element (Zhakov: Claim 1, “providing a second response to the second request generated by the second AI model”).
Zhakov does not explicitly disclose that the new response is to the [same] content (although this would fall within the understanding of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date).
However, Ashktorab teaches that the new response is to the [same] content (Ashktorab: Page 4 (5), “Repair Strategies” section including strategies that change model behavior in place and use the previously inputted user content).
Zhakov and Ashktorab are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to chatbot systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Ashktorab’s repair strategies into the system of Zhakov to provide a smoother user experience.
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 2/10/18. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9/medium of claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the related response to the content has not been output by the chatbot within the chat element based on the response from the account device within the chat element (Zhakov: Paragraph [0045], “a detected negative emotional response by the customer indicative of low customer service satisfaction levels”; Ashktorab: Page 5 (6), Figure 1 showing user responses indicating incorrect chatbot response).
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 4/12/20. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9/medium of claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to extract the exchange of the content from the chat element and determine that the related response to the content has not been output by the chatbot within the chat element based on an execution of the AI model on the exchange of the content (Zhakov: Paragraph [0045], “an answer can be identified as being incorrect when its accuracy is determined to be less than 80% or 90%”; Ashktorab: Page 4 (5), “Repair Strategies” including detection by the AI of a potential breakdown/evidence of a breakdown).
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 5/13. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to execute the second AI model on interaction event content previously input to the AI model to generate the new chatbot response (implied in Zhakov: Paragraph [0039], “An escalation between a first AI model, a second AI model and sometimes a third or fourth AI can occur with or without notifying the customer. Since the first and second AI models can have access to all records associated with the call, there is no need for a verbal transference of information”; Ashktorab: Page 4 (5), “Repair Strategies” section including strategies that change model behavior in place and use the previously inputted user content).
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 6/14. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the related response to the content has not been output by the second AI model based on the content within the chat element, and in response, execute a third AI model on the content received from the account device within the chat element to generate another new chatbot response to the content and output the another new chatbot response within the chat element (Zhakov: Paragraph [0039], “An escalation between a first AI model, a second AI model and sometimes a third or fourth AI can occur with or without notifying the customer”; it is clear that this process can continue for not just two models but for any arbitrary number).
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 7/15. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9, wherein the AI model comprises a different algorithm than the second AI model, and the processor is further configured to train the AI model and the second AI model on same training data (Zhakov: Paragraph [0021], “connect to a variety of available foundational Artificial Intelligence Models of or associated with AI model repository 104. System 100 allows tuning up one or more of the foundational Artificial Intelligence Models (organically within or for a particular enterprise) specifically for the desired use cases 106 thus targeting a specific industry or customer”, and Paragraph [0022], “AI models capable of carrying on conversations with a customer at varying levels of complexity depending on the amount of training undergone by the AI model and depending on the amount of processing and informational resources allocated to the AI model”; a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application would understand the use of this selection of alternative models and sets of training data to include this option).
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 8/16. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9, wherein the AI model comprises a same algorithm as the second AI model, and the processor is further configured to train the AI model and the second AI model on different training data (Zhakov: Paragraph [0022], “AI models capable of carrying on conversations with a customer at varying levels of complexity depending on the amount of training undergone by the AI model and depending on the amount of processing and informational resources allocated to the AI model”; i.e., the two variables are the resources allocated to the AI model (influencing the algorithm) and the amount of training data, which allows for effectively four possibilities: different algorithm/same data, different algorithm/different data, same algorithm/same data (which would not be particularly useful), and same algorithm/different data; a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application would understand the use of this small selection of alternatives).
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhakov (US 2025/0071211 A1) in view of Ashktorab (“Resilient Chatbots: Repair Strategy Preferences for Conversational Breakdowns”) as applied above in further view of Braverman (WO 00/01137).
Zhakov-Ashktorab teaches 3/11/19. The apparatus of claim 1/method of claim 9/medium of claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the related response to the content has not been output by the chatbot within the chat element (Zhakov: Paragraph [0040], “Following a threshold number of responses exceeding a pre-determined threshold number of incorrect or inaccurate responses, a new AI model can be assigned to take over responsibility for the interaction”, and Paragraph [0045], “performance thresholds include a lack accuracy and/or a detected negative emotional response by the customer indicative of low customer service satisfaction levels”)
Zhakov-Ashktorab does not explicitly disclose the determination is based on a lack of the response from the account device within a predetermined period of time.
However, Braverman teaches this feature (Braverman: Page 21 (23), Lines 12-15, “It should be noted that if the caller fails to enter a card identifier or otherwise permits a time-out to occur, the caller's access call may be routed to a customer service center for live-operator assistance”).
Zhakov-Ashktorab and Braverman are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to interactive customer systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Braverman’s timeout-based escalation into the system of Zhakov-Ashktorab to detect failures based on additional conditions, including a lack of user response to a presented prompt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson (US 2019/0140986 A1) describes a modular chatbot orchestration system that selects appropriate models for user conversations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMAD HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 ET.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/IMAD HUSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453