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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The pending claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Please see attached PTO-1449.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Line 1 recites “Systems, apparatuses, methods, and computer program products” and lines 2,-6, 8 and 10 recites “The example” are phrases that can be implied and not clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 2, it is suggested to have “a processor; a memory to store instructions, the instructions is executed by the processor to”.
Because “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114.II.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16, line 3, recites the limitation "apparatus" without description for “apparatus”. Therefore, it is indefinite. It is suggested to replace “apparatus” by “processor”.
All claims depend on rejected claims are also rejected.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8 are method claims. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. However, claims 1-8 fail to transform underlying subject matter to a different state or thing. Furthermore, the claims are not tied to another statutory class and can be performed without the use of a particular apparatus. For example, claim 1 recites “receiving, by communications hardware, a call transcript…; determining, by a smart engine and using an annotation model, one or more annotations for the call transcript; annotating, by the smart engine and using the annotation model, the call transcript with the one or more annotations; …and providing, by the communications hardware, the targeted analytics report”, but in no way is it clear as to how this is accomplished (i.e., accomplished by a particular machine). In order to make the method claim a statutory subject matter, a hardware component (i.e. a processor) must be explicitly provided in the body of the claim to execute the steps in the method claim. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category.
Paragraph 31 of instant specification describe limitation “communications hardware”. However, the paragraph describe “communications hardware” by “may be”, “may include”, “for example” and “may include”. It is an open ended definition. the Examiner has to interpret as broadly as their terms reasonably allow to be not including hardware processor.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 9-15 are allowed over the prior art made of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination of prior art reference Tremblay et al., Zhu et al. and Zeng et al. does not teach “receive a call transcript, wherein the call transcript is associated with transcript metadata; determine using an annotation model, one or more annotations for the call transcript, annotate, using the annotation model, the call transcript with the one or more annotations, and store the annotated call transcript in a history recorder repository, wherein the history recorder repository comprises one or more annotated call transcripts; identify an analytics inquiry, wherein the analytics inquiry comprises one or more attributes of interest, wherein an attribute of interest corresponds to the one or more annotations, select, using an analytics model, the one or more annotated call transcripts based on the one or more attributes of interest, and generate, using the analytics model, the targeted analytics report based on the selected one or more annotated call transcripts, provide the targeted analytics report” as shown in the independent claim 9. Thereby, the combination of limitations in claim 9 is not taught by the prior art.
After review of result of the searches conducted, the Examiner is persuaded that the prior art made of record does not teach the above described and high-lighted major features in the independent claim 9. The dependent claims, being definite, further limiting, and fully enabled by the specification and are also allowed.
A search for the prior art in PE2E database and on domains (IEEE, ACM, Google Patents, Google Scholar, IP.com) have been conducted. The prior art searched and examined in the database and domains do not fairly teach or suggest the limitations of the claimed subject matter.
The prior art of record neither anticipate nor render obvious the above-recited combination.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAU SHYA MENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1634. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/JAU SHYA MENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights