DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 18/674,398, filed 24 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or apparatus (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) processing a request in no particular manner but simply based on certain data, selecting a set of information about a topic from among several, querying a set of data to obtain a result, again in no particular manner, and producing output.
Searching for information and reporting on the results is human, mental work, which people have done for centuries before there was any such thing as a computer. Just for one example, a librarian, in the pre-computer age, could select topics based on requests and consult paper records, e.g. a card catalog, to find relevant information about the selected topics. This presents no practical difficulty and required no technology beyond paper records.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data concerning knowledge categories, inquiries and the like, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 13, which has the most, includes a processor and memory. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when analyzed individually. The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 14, 15 and 19 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 4 and 16 combine further description of data with steps taken outside the scope of the claimed process. Claims 5 and 17 consist entirely of a mere duplication of parts, of no patentable significance and which in any case does nothing to make the invention less abstract.
Claims 6, 10 and 18 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of information. Claims 8 and 20 purport to limit objects entirely outside the scope of the claimed invention. Claim 9 consists entirely of mere labeling, of no patentable significance and which in any case does nothing to make the invention less abstract. Claim 11 simply recites a timing parameter.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019, revised October 2019)).
\
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) 1-3 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0245651, filed 3 April 2023).
With regard to Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
processing, by one or more processors, [0501; a “processor” executes “computer readable program instructions” stored in a “computer readable storage medium”] a received first user request to predict a knowledge context area, of a set of knowledge context areas, based on the received first user request and a conversation history with a first user, wherein the knowledge context area is based on a predetermined structure of an organization associated with the first user; [0057; a user “frequently requests recommendations for local restaurants” which allows the “AI system” to “personalize future recommendations based on the user’s past preferences and feedback”; a user has “registered” their “mobile device or e-mail”; 0072; the user may request information on other topics such as rides; a topic reads on a knowledge context area; 0049; a “set of databases” or “repositories” reads on the claimed predetermined structure]
selecting, by the one or more processors, one or more knowledge databases, of a set of knowledge databases, based on the received first user request and the knowledge context arca, a user role associated with the received first user request, [0114; the system can provide “conversational AI agents” serving “various roles”, of which some are listed] and contextual information from the conversation history associated with the received first user request, [0114; the agent may be “trained in a specific” or “multiple domains” and, 0115, may converse based on contextual factors; 0052; this can include “previous conversations”] wherein the one or more knowledge databases includes preprocessed data from one or more data sources; [0046; the information may have been “preprocessed and categorized”]
querying, the one or more knowledge databases based on the received first user request to obtain a result; [0057 as cited above] and
outputting, the result based on the querying of the one or more knowledge databases. [0057; the system will “provide” the recommendations]
With regard to Claim 2:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a user role based on an identity associated with the received first user request. [0230; the system makes determinations and grants access “based on the user’s role”; abstract; the user is identified]
With regard to Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the knowledge context area is predicted based on the user role associated with the received first user request. [id.; the user must have access in order to make a request at all]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 2. As neither claim 1 nor claim 2 actually makes any prediction at all, the manner by which a prediction is made purports to limit a step entirely outside the scope of the claimed invention and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 10:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising summarizing conversation associated with the first request and the result, wherein contextual information from the conversation is determined based on the summarized conversation. [0243; summaries are provided]
That “contextual information from the conversation is determined based on the summarized conversation” purports to limit a step entirely outside of the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. Nowhere in claim 1 is any contextual information determined; such information is simply used as a basis for a selection and is merely input. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 11:
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein summarizing the conversation is performed after a predetermined number of requests and results occur in the conversation.
As there are only three possible orders in which these two things can take place – the summarization can take place before any number of requests and results, contemporaneous therewith, or after – it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to choose any from such a short list of possibilities with a reasonable chance of success.
With regard to Claim 12:
The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein summarizing the conversation preserves relevant details of the conversation. [0243 as cited above; there is no hint that providing the summary removes any of the underlying information]
With regard to Claim 13:
An apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor being configured [0501; a “processor” executes “computer readable program instructions” stored in a “computer readable storage medium”] to:
process, by a machine learning (ML) model, a received first user request to predict a knowledge context area, of a set of knowledge context areas, based on the received first user request and a conversation history with a first user, wherein the knowledge context area is based on a predetermined structure of an organization associated with the first user; [0057; a user “frequently requests recommendations for local restaurants” which allows the “AI system” to “personalize future recommendations based on the user’s past preferences and feedback”; a user has “registered” their “mobile device or e-mail”; 0072; the user may request information on other topics such as rides; a topic reads on a knowledge context area; 0049; a “set of databases” or “repositories” reads on the claimed predetermined structure]
select, one or more knowledge databases, of a set of knowledge databases, based on the received first user request and the knowledge context area, a user role associated with the received first user request, [0114; the system can provide “conversational AI agents” serving “various roles”, of which some are listed] and contextual information from the conversation history associated with the received first user request, [0114; the agent may be “trained in a specific” or “multiple domains” and, 0115, may converse based on contextual factors; 0052; this can include “previous conversations”] wherein the one or more knowledge databases includes preprocessed data from one or more data sources; [0046; the information may have been “preprocessed and categorized”]
query the one or more knowledge databases based on the received first user request to obtain a result; [0057 as cited above] and
output the result based on the querying of the one or more knowledge databases. [0057; the system will “provide” the recommendations]
With regard to Claim 14:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a user role based on an identity associated with the received first user request. [0230; the system makes determinations and grants access “based on the user’s role”; abstract; the user is identified]
With regard to Claim 15:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the knowledge context area is predicated based on the user role associated with the received first user request. [id.; the user must have access in order to make a request at all]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 14. As neither claim 13 nor claim 14 actually makes any prediction at all, the manner by which a prediction is made purports to limit a step entirely outside the scope of the claimed invention and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gasper et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0327119).
Claims 4 and 16 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 4:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein raw data is preprocessed by an ML model data extractor, wherein the ML model data extractor is configured to generate vectorized data and metadata to classify portions of the data into categories, wherein the categories are defined based on the knowledge context area associated with the organization.
With regard to Claim 16:
The apparatus of claim 13, wherein raw data is preprocessed by an ML model data extractor, wherein the ML model data extractor is configured to generate vectorized data and metadata to classify portions of the data into categories, and wherein the categories are defined based on the knowledge context area associated with the organization.
Wang teaches the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 13, including preprocessing as cited above, but does not explicitly teach this use of vectors, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Gasper teaches a system to determine relevant catalog data from graph-based data. [title] It uses data interactions to “train a data model”, [0029] and classifies data using “metadata” and a “support vector machine”. [0060] which creates “word vectors” to determine “a degree of equivalency”. [0071] The resulting data may be “categorically linked within a portion of a graph constituting a data catalog”. [0137] Data may be summarized to provide the resulting information. [0100] Gasper and Wang are analogous art as each is directed to the use of machine learning in text processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gasper with that of Wang in order to improve relevance, as taught by Gasper; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply processing data in the manner of Gasper rather than, or in addition to, that of Wang; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
These claims are not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 13. As no preprocessing step is positively recited as being within the scope of the claimed method or process carried out by the claimed apparatus, characteristics of the preprocessing are outside the scope of the claimed invention and so are considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 5:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving a second user request;
predicting that the second user request is associated with a new knowledge context area; and
querying another knowledge database based on the second user request and new knowledge context area, wherein the another knowledge database is associated with the new knowledge context area. [Wang, 0345; the process iterates]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating a portion of a process a second time, which is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 6:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving a second user request;
predicting that the second user request is associated with a current knowledge context area; and
querying the one or more knowledge databases based on the second user request. [id.]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating a portion of a process a second time, which is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 7:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the knowledge context area associated with the organization is defined based on a knowledge graph, wherein the knowledge graph is based on entities relationships within the organization. [Gasper, 0137 as cited above in regard to claim 4]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 4 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 8:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the entities within the organization are associated with different knowledge databases. [Gasper, 0042; plural “databases” may store data]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 7 as it purports to limit objects entirely outside of the claimed method or any system performing its functions and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 9:
The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more knowledge databases include at least one of a documentation database, a source code, a historical service ticket database, or an organization transactional database. [0231; a database may store “data related to an individual’s or organizations financial transactions”]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 8 as it consists entirely of mere labeling, which is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 17:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a second user request;
predict that the second user request is associated with a new knowledge context area; and
query another knowledge database based on the second user request and new knowledge context area, wherein the another knowledge database is associated with the new knowledge context area. [Wang, 0345; the process iterates]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 16 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating a portion of a process a second time, which is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 18:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a second user request;
predict that the second user request is associated with a current knowledge context area; and
query the one or more knowledge databases based on the second user request. [id.]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 16 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating a portion of a process a second time, which is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 19:
The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the knowledge context areas associated with the organization is defined based on a knowledge graph, and wherein the knowledge graph is based on entities relationships within the organization. [Gasper, 0137 as cited above in regard to claim 16]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 16 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed apparatus. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 20:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the entities within the organization are associated with different knowledge databases. [Gasper, 0042; plural “databases” may store data]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 19 as it purports to limit objects entirely outside of the claimed apparatus and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights