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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-7 remain pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims do not fall into one of the enumerated groupings since the human mind is not equipped to input preprocessed associated data into an algorithm to obtain data via computational processes that require the use of complex algorithms executed by a computer system. However, the Examiner disagrees. First the calculations using random forest algorithm and navies Bayes algorithms squarely fall in to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts since they represent mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations, see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) (I). Further, inputting preprocessed associated data into an algorithm to obtain data is essentially data collection, classification/analysis, scoring/weighting similar to Electric Power Group, see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) (III)(A). Finally, a claim can fall without in the mental processes grouping if it can be practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674.
Applicant next argues that the amended claims is directed to an improvement to computing technology or technical field and are integrated into a practical application since the claim “provides, inter alia, "efficiency analysis method, the method utilizing an intelligent interaction system comprising a computer, the computer comprising at least one memory storing one or more non-transitory computer-executable instructions, and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, in response to executing the one or more instructions, implements the method, the method comprising”. However, the computer is recited at a high-level of generality and is merely being used to “apply” the abstract idea with the use of a general-purpose computer.
Further Applicant submits “the claimed feature of "adjusting, based on the comprehensive scores, accuracy of data analysis, voice recognition performance and text analysis capability of the intelligent interaction system" applies the comprehensive scores into the adjustments of accuracy of data analysis, voice recognition performance and text analysis capability of the intelligent interaction system.” Courts distinguish between applying an abstract idea to produce a practical result and improving computer functionality itself. Using analytics to tune system performance (accuracy, voice recognition, text analysis) typically is treated as an application of an abstract idea unless the claim shows how the tuning is performed in a new technical way that improves computing performance, latency, resource use, reliability, etc., see Electric Power Group v. Alstom. Merely tying analytics to adjustments of an “intelligent interaction system” ordinarily reads as using the results of an abstract process to control a system rather than a technical improvement in the computer itself.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining user information and behavior data generated during execution of user commands, and associating the user information with the behavior data to obtain associated data; preprocessing the associated data, selecting efficiency indicators for the intelligent interaction system based on standard indicators, and classifying the preprocessed associated data according to the efficiency indicators to obtain classified data, wherein the classifying comprises inputting the preprocessed associated data into a random forest algorithm to obtain initial classified data and inputting the initial classified data into a naive Bayes algorithm to obtain the classified data; formulating efficiency scoring criteria based on expert opinions, and obtaining efficiency scores of the classified data by using the efficiency scoring criteria; determining weights of the efficiency scores by using an objective weight assignment method, and evaluating the efficiency scores through fuzzy comprehensive evaluation based on the weights to obtain comprehensive scores; and adjusting, based on the comprehensive scores, accuracy of data analysis, voice recognition performance, and text analysis capability of the intelligent interaction system.” The limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the “mathematical concepts”, “mental processes”, and “certain methods of organizing human activity. Using algorithms to score and weight data for efficiency falls into mathematical concepts and/or calculations, see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2)(i). Obtaining user information and preprocessing the data to be scored, classified, and weighted can be performed practically in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) and/or using pen and paper, see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) (III) Further, adjusting system performance based on comprehensive scores is managing personal behaviors or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) (II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “a computer, the computer comprising at least one memory storing one or more non-transitory computer-executable instructions, and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, in response to executing the one or more instructions, implements the method” (claim 1) are not indicative of integration into a practical application since they are recited at a high-level of generality. Additionally, these additional elements amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and merely use a computer as a tool to practice the judicial exception Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements are still mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole describe obtaining user information and preprocessing the data to be scored, classified, and weighted, where the method is implemented using “a computer, the computer comprising at least one memory storing one or more non-transitory computer-executable instructions, and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, in response to executing the one or more instructions”, which are generic computer instructions and components to perform the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception with a general purpose computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea. There are no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application; nor are there additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, even when viewed as a while, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Reasons for Claims Not Being Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-7 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is:
Funk et al (US 2023/0103202) which describes validation of a voice assistant based on performance of indicators such as task completion rate and time. The system also pinpoints errors in the intelligence.
Pandey et al (US 11,450,325) discloses ranking feedback related to user satisfaction with processing of request data from a virtual assistant using statistical machine learning models.
Kaushik et al (“Multinomial Naïve Bayesian Classifier Framework for Systematic Analysis of Smart IoT Devices) describes classifying user sentiment of responses from intelligent virtual assistant devices.
Soman et al (US 2025/0225413) teaches predicting key performance indicators of a communication system.
There is no prior art known at this time that can be reasonably combined to teach “selecting efficiency indicators for the intelligent interaction system…classifying the preprocessed associated data according to the efficiency indicators”, and “obtaining efficiency scores of the classified data by using the efficiency scoring criteria” and “determining weights of the efficiency scores by using an objective weight assignment method, and evaluating the efficiency scores through fuzzy comprehensive evaluation based on the weights to obtain comprehensive scores”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights