DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on April 11, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the obtained feedback" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 11 from which it depends. Corresponding correction is required. For purposes of examination claim 20 is interpreted to depend from claim 19 (providing antecedent) instead, also mirroring the dependency of claim 10 from claim 9.
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., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the claims describe a system for providing instructions to generate a communication interface which is a method of organizing a human activity (instructions for commercial interaction). The limitations on providing instructions, receiving a message, generating input, receiving a response, parsing the response, generating a suggestion and outputting data could be all performed in the human mind and/or with the help of paper and pencil. Other than reciting client devices and a non-transitory readable storage medium, nothing in the claim precludes the steps for being performed in the human mind and/or the help of paper and pencil. The limitations regarding the machine learning model are simply applying the abstract idea to a general computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process and method of organizing a human activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the providing, receiving, generating, parsing and outputting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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)(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) 1-5, 7-8, 11-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Thomas (US 2023/0018620 A1).
Claim 1
Thomas discloses the following limitations:
A method comprising:
providing instructions to generate a communication interface on one or more client devices; (see at least paragraph 0037-communication interface).
receiving, from the one or more client devices, a message from a conversation sent from a sending party to a receiving party; (see at least paragraphs 0100-receive an indication of the updated fulfillment route).
generating a prompt for input to a machine-learned language model, the prompt specifying at least the message and one or more inputs, and a request to infer whether a response can be generated for the message; (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039-facilitate speech recognition; input interfaces to receive user inputs related to customer orders and 0093-voice input to determine first item location lacks any instance of the first item).
providing the prompt to a model serving system for execution by the machine-learned model for execution; (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0093 and 0100).
receiving, from the model serving system, a response generated by executing the machine-learned model on the prompt; (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0093 and 0100).
parsing the response from the model serving system to extract the response to the message; (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0093 and 0100).
responsive to receiving the response, generating a suggestion or action to provide to the sending party in conjunction with the response; and (see at least paragraphs 0095 and 0038-0039-alternative locations that have some stock of the respective item).
outputting an intercepted response to the sending party including the extracted response or a description of the suggestion or action. (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0093, 0095 and 0100).
Claim 2
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
wherein the intercepted response to the message is an indication that an error has been made while fulfilling an order of the receiving party, and the suggestion or action is a suggestion or action to correct the error by the sending party (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0093, 0095 and 0100).
Claim 3
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
wherein the message is from a picker indicating an item in an order of a user is not available at a retailer store, wherein the prompt includes the message, an image of a portion of a retailer store, a map of the retailer store, and picker location data identifying a location of the picker in the retailer store, and wherein the intercepted response includes a message that the picker is in a wrong part of the retailer store (see at least paragraphs 0065, fig 5A, 0072- The system may determine that the desired item is in a different location; see also paragraphs 038-0039, 0093, 0095 and 0100).
Claim 4
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
wherein determining the suggestion or action comprises: retrieving a location of the item at the retailer store, and wherein the intercepted response includes the suggestion to navigate to the location of the retailer store to find the item. (see at least paragraphs 0065, 0072, 038-0039, 0093, 0095 and 0100).
Claim 5
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
wherein the message is from a user requesting a picker to identify an item that is not in an order of the user, wherein identifying the suggestion or action further comprises invoking an application programming interface (API) call to add the item to the order of the user, and wherein the intercepted response indicates that the requested item has been added to the user’s order. (see at least paragraphs 0048, 0118-substitute item; once the customer confirms the new item, the device will update the order with the new information, see also paragraphs 0038-0039, 0065, 0072, 0093, 0095 and 0100).
Claim 7
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
wherein the message is from a picker notifying a user that they cannot find an item in an order and submitting an image of where the item should be at a retailer store, wherein determining the suggestion or action further comprises correctly identifying the item in the image, or suggesting alternatives for the requested item, and wherein the intercepted response indicates to the picker that the item is in the image or suggesting the picker pick the suggested alternative. (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0065, 0072, 0093, 0095 and 0100).
Claim 8
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: identifying with a degree of confidence to intercept the message and generate the intercepted response; compare the degree of confidence to a threshold value; and responsive to the comparison, outputting the intercepted response to the sending party (see at least paragraphs 0076 and 0106-The system compares a value to a threshold to determine if a product is located in an image; compare the degree of confidence to a threshold value and responsive to the comparison, outputting the intercepted response to the sending party).
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.
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) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2023/0018620 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0287171 A1).
Claim 6
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
if determined that the key item cannot be found, and the method further comprising, responsive to receiving a notification that the one or more items cannot be found (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0065, 0072, 0093, 0095 and 0100- conditional limitation no patentable weight).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however Kim does:
wherein the message is from a user identifying an item is key to an order, wherein the intercepted response further comprises whether the user would like to cancel the order, cancelling the order and notifying the user and a picker. (see at least paragraphs 0100-priority level; 0049, 0073 and 0116-user wants to cancel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Thomas and Kim in order to improve system’s efficiency (Kim paragraph 0100). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2023/0018620 A1) in view of Homma (US 2019/0130904 A1).
Claim 9
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: obtaining one or more subsequent messages from the communication interface that occur after the intercepted response; from the receiving party from the one or more subsequent messages. (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0065, 0072, 0076, 0093, 0095, 0100 and 0106).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however Homma does:
and identifying whether the intercepted response received positive feedback or negative feedback (see at least paragraph 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Thomas and Homma in order to improve system’s efficiency as it would allow the system to fine tune its language processing (Homma paragraph 0091). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
Claim 10
Furthermore, Thomas discloses the following limitations:
based on the prompt, the intercepted response (see at least paragraphs 0038-0039, 0065, 0072, 0076, 0093, 0095, 0100 and 0106).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however Homma does:
further comprising: fine-tuning parameters of the machine-learned model, (see at least paragraph 0178).
and the obtained feedback for the conversation. (see at least paragraph 0045 and 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings in Thomas and Homma in order to improve system’s efficiency as it would allow the system to fine tune its language processing (Homma paragraph 0091). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity.
As per claims 11-20, claims 11-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 1-10 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627