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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed October 31, 2025, applicant submitted an amendment filed on January 27, 2026, in which the applicant traversed and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the claimed features are a technical solution to the technical problem of decreasing the number of user-system interactions needed for a user to be provided with requested information. It was explained that the request includes entity information from the dialog session, which is a particular solution to the technical problem of the number of user-system interactions needed before a skill component is able to provide a user with the requested information. It was further explained that the instant independent claims do not merely recite the idea of decreasing the number of user-system interactions needed before a skill component is able to provide a user with requested information, rather, the independent claims recite a particular way to achieve the desired outcome, namely “based on receiving the input data, sending, to the skill component, a request to perform the functionality, where the request includes entity information from the dialog session. It is noted that although the specification mentions improving human-computer interactions by anticipating the needs of a user and reducing the cognitive burden of the user needing to achieve their goals by recommending information, such data is not reflected in the claim. Furthermore, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same results does not make the claims statutory.
In the instant claims, the abstract idea results in an output of generic “information” that is not utilized in any particular fashion or for any particular purpose. It does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. While the claimed invention may have some use in technical fields, that use or implementation in particular technology or technological environment has not been recited in the claimed invention. Absent these recitations, the only claim elements that remain are generic computer components that do not qualify as significantly more. Therefore, the claims are non-statutory.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of dialog expansion, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “components, a processor and memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing. For example, the language, receiving first input data representing a first natural language user input of a first dialog session (can be done by a user listening to someone talk), processing the first input data using at least one first processing component, configured to perform natural language processing, to determine first output data responsive to the first natural language user input (can be done by a user determining how to respond); determining first data representing context information of the first dialog session (can be done by the user making a determination); processing the first data using a trained machine learning (ML) model to determine a skill component and a functionality by the skill component (can be done by a user using model data to make a determination); determining second output data recommending performance of the functionality by the skill component (can be done by the user making a determination and recommending data), sending the second output data to a first device for presentation (can be done by a user sharing the data), receiving second input data corresponding to a user input requesting the functionality be performed (can be done by a user receiving data) and based on receiving the second input data, sending a request to perform the functionality, wherein the request includes entity information from the first dialog session (can be done by a user receiving data), processing, by the skill component, the request to determine third output data, wherein the request including the entity information from the first dialog session causes the skill component to process the request using a processing step in a processing pipeline of the skill component after an initial prompt section of the processing pipeline (can be done by a user processing data accordingly) and sending the third output data to the first device for presentation (can be done by a user displaying the data). The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that 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 elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language of make different determinations and sending the data, which is all mental processing and non-statutory.
Under the newest guidelines, the claims are similar to example 47 (Anomaly Detection), claim 2 wherein the claim merely uses trained data. The claims does not explicitly go into details of actually training the data and using the trained data for a particular purpose.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights