DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the subject matter of the claims is directed to technical improvements in the functioning of a computer and computing technology and The claims do not merely recite generic computer implementation or insignificant extra-solution activity; rather, they provide a specific, technical solution. Furthermore, the claims are narrowly tailored to a particular technical implementation and do not preempt all applications of the alleged abstract idea (REMARKS, on page 13 of 25, 3rd paragraph– page 20 of 25, 2nd paragraph).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is proper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea. The patent-eligibility analysis below follows 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, dated July, 2024 and Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations, dated December 4, 2025.
These activities of claim 1 reflect converting audio into text, summarizing the text into a request summary, and inferring a target operation from that summary. It then maps the inferred intent to suggestions containing action items that can be presented on a workspace device. In this way, the system turns spoken communication into structured, actionable workflow guidance with using authorized communication matches and feedback from prior summaries to custom an application. There steps are information processing and decision-making — activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and requires no more than a performing of generic computer functions (e.g. collecting data, calculating), and that courts/USPTO treat as abstract ideas.
Even though the claim references “machine learning model” these are recited functionally, without technical detail about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way.
Applicant’s invention is not technological improvement of the existing, but helping to achieve better human functionality using a generic computer. Even though the disclosed invention is described in the background as improving computer technology, the claim provides no meaningful limitations such that this improvement is realized. When the claimed system changes the architecture itself—e.g., how information flows, not just what it does—that may satisfy eligibility.
Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claims 9 and 17, the claims 9 and 17 are similar to claim 1.
Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to independent claims 10 and 16, the claims 10 and 16 are similar to claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 10 and 18, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 11, and 19, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 12, and 20, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 13, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 14, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 15, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 16, claims are also directed to processes which manipulate data which are processes which can be performed by a human and implemented by a generic computer. Accordingly, the limitations of the Claims are not sufficient to add significantly more to improve technological functionality.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Thus, the rejection is maintained at this time. Please see the rejection below for the whole analysis.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amended limitations raise new grounds for rejections and further that the Examiner is therefore applying a new reference.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 of Co-Pending Application No. 18/749,517. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because adding inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/step and rearranging the claims would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the insertion of an element, e.g. “storing rules and policies referencing a plurality of authorized communication operations”, and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Insertion of a reference element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Instant Application No. 18/749,510
Co-Pending Application No. 18/749,517
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory operable to store:
a machine learning algorithm configured to evaluate data in accordance with one or more machine learning models; and one or more authorized communication operations; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to:
obtain first audio data from a user device;
in response to receiving the first audio data, execute the machine learning algorithm to:
transcribe the first audio data into first text data;
summarize the first text data into a first request summary, the first request summary being representative of a first predicted purpose associated with the first audio data;
in response to summarizing the first text data, determine a first target operation based on the first request summary, the first target operation being a first determined intent to perform a first communication operation;
map the first determined intent to a first suggestion, the first suggestion comprising a first plurality of action items to complete the first determined intent to perform the first communication operation; determine whether the first communication operation at least partially matches the one or more authorized communication operations; and in response to determining that the first communication operation at least partially matches the one or more authorized communication operations: identify the first determined intent to perform the first communication operation as a reset point for training the one or more machine learning models; train the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the reset point; and present the first suggestion to a workspace device configured to complete the performance of the first communication operation.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to:
prior to obtaining the first audio data from the user device, identify a communication exchange between the user device and the workspace device; and
in the communication exchange, the user device is authenticated by the workspace device as being entitled to access one or more services.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate an overall communication summary comprising a plurality of datapoints indicating of the first request summary in relation to a first plurality of words identified in the first text data, the second request summary in relation to a second plurality of words identified in the second text data, the first suggestion corresponding to the first target operation, the second suggestion corresponding to the second target operation, and the third suggestion corresponding to the second target operation;
in response to generating the overall communication summary, execute the machine learning algorithm to structure the plurality of datapoints to train the one or more machine learning models; and
train the one or more machine learning models in accordance with a structured version of the plurality of datapoints.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory operable to store:
a machine learning algorithm configured to evaluate data in accordance with one or more machine learning models; and
one or more rules and policies referencing a plurality of authorized communication operations by a workspace device interfacing with the apparatus; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to:
obtain first audio data from a user device configured to perform a plurality of communication operations with the workspace device;
in response to receiving the first audio data, execute the machine learning algorithm to:
transcribe the first audio data into first text data;
summarize the first text data into a first request summary, the first request summary being representative of a first predicted purpose associated with the first audio data;
determine a first target operation based on the first request summary, the first target operation being a first determined intent to perform a first communication operation; and
determine whether the first communication operation at least partially matches the plurality of authorized communication operations; and
in response to determining that the first communication operation at least partially matches the plurality of authorized communication operations, present the first request summary as a first reset point to train the one or more machine learning models.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is further configured to:
prior to obtaining the first audio data from the user device, identify a communication exchange between the user device and the workspace device; and
in the communication exchange, the user device is authenticated by the workspace device as being entitled to access one or more services.
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.
Step 2A: The independent claim 9 recites “obtaining first audio data from a user device; in response to receiving the first audio data, executing a machine learning algorithm to perform one or more operations comprising: transcribing the first audio data into first text data; summarizing the first text data into a first request summary, the first request summary being representative of a first predicted purpose associated with the first audio data; in response to summarizing the first text data, determining a first target operation based on the first request summary, the first target operation being a first determined intent to perform a first communication operation; and mapping the first determined intent to a first suggestion, the first suggestion comprising a first plurality of action items to complete the first determined intent to perform the first communication operation; determining whether the first communication operation at least partially matches the one or more authorized communication operations; and in response to determining that the first communication operation at least partially matches one or more authorized communication operations: identifying the first determined intent to perform the first communication operation as a reset point for training one or more machine learning models; training the one or more machine learning models based at least in part on the reset point; and presenting the first suggestion to a workspace device configured to complete the performance of the first communication operation.” These activities reflect perceiving information, analyzing and extracting meaning, deciding or selecting an action based on that meaning, and generating a recommended set of actions.
For example:
Transcribing speech into text is the conversion of verbal content to written form—a task humans routinely perform mentally or with conventional tools.
Summarizing text to infer a purpose or intent is an activity of comprehension and extraction of meaning, i.e., a cognitive process.
Determining a target operation and mapping it to action items are decision-making and planning steps that are mental processes.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2: Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory, processor, and presenting to a workspace device) and broadly recite use of “a machine learning algorithm” and “one or more machine learning models” without describing any specific, unconventional structure, algorithmic detail, data structure, or system architecture that provides a concrete technical improvement in computer functionality.
Applying Alice step two and relevant Federal Circuit precedent:
The recitation of conventional computer components (memory and processor) performing routine functions does not supply an inventive concept.
The mere invocation of “machine learning” or “machine learning models” without particularity does not demonstrate an unconventional machine or technique or a specific improvement in computer technology.
The claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “summarize,” “determine,” “map”) that describe mental processes rather than specific technical means for performing those processes.
Because the claims lack limitations that tie the mental-process steps to a particular way of achieving a technological improvement (for example, a novel model architecture, specialized data representation, unique training regimen that yields demonstrable technical performance gains, a specialized streaming/decoding pipeline that reduces latency by a quantifiable amount, or hardware/software co-design), the additional elements do not transform the mental processes into significantly more. Accordingly, there 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 is directed to an 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 1 and 17, the claim is similar to claim 9 and claims 1 and 17 recite additional element of “memory” and “processor”. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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 SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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-Louis 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights