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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 Abstract Idea in regards to claims 1 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments. See detailed rejection below.
Considered the following three new found prior art references:
Vibbert et al. (US 2016/0042735)
Singh et al. (US 2019/0317994)
Mishchenko et al. (US 11,922,144)
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, 5-9, 19-20 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 101 Abstract Idea. The claims are about receiving natural-language content, recognizing intent, comparing plugin identifiers, deciding whether a session continues, is interrupted, is recovered, or is newly created, and then selecting which plugin to call. In simple terms, it is an information-analysis and decision-making process: understand the request, compare it to stored task information, choose the right task/plugin, and produce a result. These steps are “mental process” grouping of abstract idea because they involve observation, evaluation, comparison, classification and judgment.
The computer feature do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical technological application. The claims mention an electronic device, an API, a pre-trained intent-recognition model, a task stack, a large language model, and plugins, but they do not claim a specific improvement to computer operations, model training, memory management, API communication, plugin execution, or LLM performance. Instead, those components are used as generic tools to carry our the abstract idea of managing a conversation and routing a request to the proper plugin.
The claims also lack an inventive concept under Alice step two. The API steps of acquiring content, sending content, and invoking a plugin are ordinary computer operations, and the task-stack logic is just bookkeeping for deciding whether to continue, resume or start a session. The claims do not add any unconventional technical mechanism beyond implementing that decision process on generic computer and AI components. Under Alice/Mayo analysis, merely using generic computer implementation does not transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. There is further no improvement to the computing device.
Dependent claims 5-9 and 24-29 further recite an abstract idea performable by a human and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps other than what is conventionally known.
Claims 5 and 24, organizing work items is an abstract administrative function performed on a computer.
Claims 6 and 25, sorting and sequential execution are generic workflow scheduling, and the claim remains functional and high-level without a specific improvement in computer performance or architecture.
Claims 7 and 26, does not add a specific technical solution that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 27, an abstract information-processing. concept implemented using generic components.
Claims 9 and 28, administrative control of a task workflow (human-like override/control logic) and does not recite a concrete technical improvement that would supply an inventive concept.
Claim 29, administrative control of a task workflow and does not recite a concrete technical improvement that would supply an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-9, 19-20 and 24-29 would be allowable if the Applicant can overcome the 101 Abstract Idea set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYANS A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PST.
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, Pierre Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
SHREYANS A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2653
/SHREYANS A PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights