DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed 22 October 2025 (“Response”).
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–23 are currently pending and have been examined (“Examined Claims”).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC § 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 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106,1 the Examiner’s analysis in this section uses the following MPEP Steps of Table 1 (below) to determine whether a claim recites the following items:
MPEP Step
Does the claim recite ___?
MPEP §
1
A process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
2106.03
2A, Prong 1
A judicial exception, such as a law of nature or any of the following groupings of abstract ideas:
1) Mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas;
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic practice; or
3) Mental processes, such as an observation or evaluation performed in the human mind.
2106.04(a)(2)
2A, Prong 2
Any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
2B
Any additional elements beyond the judicial exception that, alone or in combination, provide an “inventive concept” or “significantly more”
2106.05
Table 1: MPEP Eligibility Steps
MPEP Step 1 (Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–23)
Each of claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–23 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 21–23 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); each of claims 8–10 and 12–14 falls within category of process; and each of claims 15–17 and 19–20 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
MPEP Step 2A – Prong 1 (Exemplary Claim 1)
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A system comprising:
a processing device; and
a non-transitory memory including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
receive, via a graphical user interface on a user device, a first query associated with a request from a client with respect to an issue with a service, wherein the first query is received in a natural language format;
provide the first query in the natural language format as a first input to a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained on historical communication logs from a messaging platform;
execute the neural network to generate a first output indicating a first answer to the first query based on the first input in the natural language format;
provide a second answer in the natural language format as a second input to the neural network;
execute the neural network to, based on the second input, generate a second output indicating a second query comprising a question in the natural language format that is answered by the second answer; and
present the first answer and the second query in the natural language format on the user device via the graphical user interface for use in resolving the issue with the service;
receive, via the graphical user interface, a rating for the first answer to the first query or for the second query associated with the second answer; and
train the neural network using the rating by weighting the first answer or the second query in a training dataset based on the rating.
For the reasons below, the italicized limitations above represent at least a mental process (i.e., a process that can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and/or a mathematical concept. Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Applicant is respectfully reminded, “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)III. (emphasis added).
“Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Id.
Moreover, “[t]he courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation[, …] [n]or do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” Id.
Furthermore, in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04 II.B., although the claim may have limitations directed to multiple abstract ideas (i.e., multiple categories), for purposes of Prong 2 and Step 2B (below), the claim is being treated as directed to a single abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04 II.B. (“During examination, examiners should apply the same eligibility analysis to all claims regardless of the number of exceptions recited therein. Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas. Accordingly, if possible[,] examiners should treat the claim for Prong Two and Step 2B purposes as containing a single judicial exception.”).
The limitation “receive […] a first query associated with a request from a client with respect to an issue with a service, wherein the first query is received in a natural language format” is a mental process, since such “receiving” can be performed mentally, i.e., through an evaluation and/or observation.
The limitations “provide the first query in the natural language format as a first input […]” and “generate a first output indicating a first answer to the first query based on the first input in the natural language format” is a mental process, since such “provid[ing]” and “generat[ing]” could be performed mentally by evaluating the first query and generating an answer to the query.
The limitations “provide a second answer in the natural language format as a second input” and “based on the second input, generate a second output indicating a second query comprising a question in the natural language format that is answered by the second answer” is a mental process, since such “provid[ing]” and “generat[ing]” could be performed mentally by evaluating the second answer and, based on the second answer, generating a query comprising a question that is answered by the second answer.
The limitation “present the first answer and the second query in the natural language format […] for use in resolving the issue with the service” is a mental process, since it can be performed at least using pen and paper.
The limitation “receive […] a rating for the first answer to the first query or for the second query associated with the second answer” is a mental process, since a rating is a mere opinion, judgment, and/or evaluation that can be received at least using pen and paper.
MPEP Step 2A – Prong 2 (Exemplary Claim 1)
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The term “additional elements” is used for features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified abstract idea.2 The additional elements are represented by the following underlined limitations:
1. A system comprising:
a processing device; and
a non-transitory memory including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to:
receive, via a graphical user interface on a user device, a first query associated with a request from a client with respect to an issue with a service, wherein the first query is received in a natural language format;
provide the first query in the natural language format as a first input to a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained on historical communication logs from a messaging platform;
execute the neural network to generate a first output indicating a first answer to the first query based on the first input in the natural language format;
provide a second answer in the natural language format as a second input to the neural network;
execute the neural network to, based on the second input, generate a second output indicating a second query comprising a question in the natural language format that is answered by the second answer; and
present the first answer and the second query in the natural language format on the user device via the graphical user interface for use in resolving the issue with the service;
receive, via the graphical user interface, a rating for the first answer to the first query or for the second query associated with the second answer; and
train the neural network using the rating by weighting the first answer or the second query in a training dataset based on the rating.
The first additional element is “a processing device; and a non-transitory memory including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to.” This element(s) amounts to mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this element(s) individually does not provide a practical application.
The second additional element is “via a graphical user interface on a user device,” “on the user device via the graphical user interface,” and “via the graphical user interface.” This element(s) amounts to mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea, at least in-part. Therefore, this element(s) individually does not provide a practical application.
The third additional element is “a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained on historical communication logs from a messaging platform,” “the neural network,” and “execute the neural network.” This element(s) amounts to mere use of a generic computer component as a tool to perform the abstract idea, at least in-part. Therefore, this element(s) individually does not provide a practical application. The use of the “neural network” as claimed amounts to the words “apply it” (e.g., perform a mental process on a computer using generic artificial intelligence or machine learning).
The fourth additional element is “train the neural network using the rating by weighting the first answer or the second query in a training dataset based on the rating.” Upon review of Applicant’s original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the specification does not include a discussion that identifies this additional element as an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by this claim language over the prior art. Furthermore, this additional element is no more than a general link to well-known machine learning technology. In fact, Applicant’s specification does not set forth technical implementation details of how to train the “neural network” with any particular “weighting,” as claimed. Because no sufficient accompanying disclosure of what technical features are encompassed by this language, a POSITA would not recognize this claim language as a practical application or an inventive concept, rather than merely an equivalent to the words “apply it.” Therefore, this additional element, either alone or in combination, does not provide a practical application of the claims or provide an inventive concept.
In view of the above, the four “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the four “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic computer and/or machine learning components used as a tool(s) to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., a computer and AI environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Moreover, upon review of Applicant’s original disclosure, the Examiner finds that the specification does not include a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
In view of the above analysis, the Examiner concludes that the additional elements recited in claim 1: (1) do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not a particular machine (e.g., an AI system is a generic computing element); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; or (4) do not add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
MPEP Step 2B (Exemplary Claim 1)
MPEP § 2106.05 II. states, “in Step 2B, examiners should: […] Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; [and] Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).”
Therefore, in accordance with MPEP § 2106.05 II., noted above, the Examiner maintains that the additional elements include the following limitations:
(1) “a processing device; and a non-transitory memory including instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to;”
(2) “via a graphical user interface on a user device,” “on the user device via the graphical user interface,” and “via the graphical user interface;”
(3) “a neural network, wherein the neural network is trained on historical communication logs from a messaging platform,” “the neural network,” and “execute the neural network;” and
(4) “train the neural network using the rating by weighting the first answer or the second query in a training dataset based on the rating.”
Moreover, in accordance with MPEP § 2106.05 II., noted above, the Examiner also maintains each conclusion from § MPEP Step 2A – Prong 2 (above) on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e) (f) and (h).
For the reasons given above, claim 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2–3, 5–7, and 21–23
Dependent claims 2–3, 5–7, and 21–23 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly.
Particularly, claims 2–3, 5–7, and 21–23 recite more language directed to the abstract idea, i.e., more language directed to at least a mental process (and/or a mathematical concept), as indicated by italicized text below:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: generate a report indicating a list of most commonly asked queries within a prior time window, wherein the report further comprises answers for each of the queries in the list of most commonly asked queries.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: prompt, via the graphical user interface, a user to input a rating for the first answer to the first query or for the second query associated with the second answer.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the neural network is further configured to generate a confidence score for the first answer, and wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to present the confidence score on the user device via the graphical user interface.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the first output generated by the neural network further comprises a number of times that the first query has been provided to the neural network.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: provide the second answer as the second input to the neural network in response to determining that a historical amount of time involved in resolving a type of issue exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein the second answer is associated with the type of issue.
21. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to train the neural network by: providing the second query as a third input to the neural network; executing the neural network, based on the third input, to generate a third output comprising a third answer to the second query in the natural language format; and retraining the neural network based on a difference between the third answer and the second answer.
22. The system of claim 1, wherein the first output or the second output further comprises at least one of a number of times that the first query has been submitted or an average rating for the first answer.
23. The system of claim 2, wherein the memory further includes instructions that are executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to: determine that a policy comprises a verified answer for a particular query of the list of most commonly asked queries; and based on determining that the policy comprises the verified answer, train the neural network by prioritizing the verified answer for the particular query.
The additional elements of claims 2–3, 5–7, and 21–23 do not make their respective claims patent eligible for the same reasons given for those elements above in the discussion of claim 1.
Claims 8–10, 12–17, and 19–20
Claims 8–10, 12–17, and 19–20 contain language similar to claims 1–3, 5–7, and 21–23 as discussed in the preceding sections, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 8–10, 12–17, and 19–20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101. In addition to that already discussed above, claim 15 includes an additional element of “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by a processing device for causing the processing device to.” This element, individually and in combination with other additional elements in the claim, does not provide a practical application or an inventive concept because it amounts to claiming a generic computer component(s) used as a tool(s) to implement the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 1, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “train the neural network using the rating by weighting the first answer or the second query in a training dataset based on the rating” in the application as filed.
For example, paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s original specification discloses “The machine learning model 116 may be any suitable type of NLP model. For example, the machine learning model 116 may be a neural network, such as a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model.” Moreover, paragraph [0036] of Applicant’s original specification discloses “For example, commonly asked queries may have verified answers that are heavily weighted in training for the machine learning model 116.” However, there is no disclosure of training a neural network by weighting the first answer or the second query based on the rating, as now claimed.
Dependent claims 2–3, 5–7, and 21–23 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 8–10, 12–17, and 19–20 contain language similar to claims 1–3, 5–7, and 21–23 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 8–10, 12–17, and 19–20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
As per claim 21, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “train the neural network by: providing the second query as a third input to the neural network; executing the neural network, based on the third input, to generate a third output comprising a third answer to the second query in the natural language format; and retraining the neural network based on a difference between the third answer and the second answer.”
As per claim 22, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the first output or the second output further comprises at least one of a number of times that the first query has been submitted or an average rating for the first answer.”
As per claim 23, Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “determine that a policy comprises a verified answer for a particular query of the list of most commonly asked queries; and based on determining that the policy comprises the verified answer, train the neural network by prioritizing the verified answer for the particular query.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “claim 1 is patent eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong 1.” Response at p. 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite at least a mental process.
Applicant argues that claim 1 includes features that improve technology or a technical field. Response at p. 13. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements noted above are not technical improvements. For example, a GUI is not a technical improvement. As another example, training a neural network via weighting is not a technical improvement. The Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s specification, and there is no discussion of a technical improvement to GUIs or to how a neural network is trained using weighting. There is no substantive discussion of even how training would be accomplished, as claimed, let alone how it would amount to a technical improvement (i.e., there is no technical implementation details of the “training” limitation).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of respective rejections not maintained.
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 JACOB C. COPPOLA whose telephone number is (571)270-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30-1:304:00 PM.
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, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See, e.g., the flowchart, titled Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, found in § 2106 III.
2 See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.05 II. (“additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”).