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 .
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 Claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. The claimed ML-
based operations-transcription, summarization, intent determination, authorization matching, and selective model training-cannot practically be performed in the human mind and do not set forth or describe any mathematical formula, equation, or calculation. Even if a judicial exception were recited, the claim as a whole integrates it into a practical application by improving computer technology- specifically, by reducing processor and memory usage through more efficient communication operations and by improving how ML models are trained through the authorization-gated reset point mechanism (REMARKS, on page 16 of 35, 3rd paragraph- page 25 of 35, 1st paragraph).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claim 1 is still directed to abstract idea.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method performed on generic data processing hardware.
Applicant addresses that “The claimed ML- based operations-transcription, summarization, intent determination, authorization matching, and selective model training-cannot practically be performed in the human mind and do not set forth or describe any mathematical formula, equation, or calculation”, on Remarks on page 24 of 35, however claim 1 does not recite any details about technological processes by which an ML based operation is able to generate such output and not to the way a human would do so or how it operates.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2: Does the claim recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter?
The claim does not recite any technical details about how the selective model training by Machine Learning algorithm operates differently from conventional models, nor does it describe any novel hardware or software architecture that improves computer functionality. The steps are performed on generic hardware without any specific enhancement to the technology.
Moreover, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea by the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.
Applicant’s invention is not technological improvement of the existing, but helping to achieve better human functionality in the field of language processing 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. Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Furthermore, the pending claims are not similar to those at issue in Ex parte Desjardins, which notes the claims for improving the function of the machine learning model itself, citing reduced storage requirement, lowered system complexity, and the prevention of “catastrophic forgetting”- the claimed system changes the architecture itself – e.g., how information flows, not just what it does – that may satisfy eligibility.
Moreover, claim 1 recites additional element of “memory” and “processor” and 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. Therefore, the claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claims 8 and 15, the claim is similar to claim 1 and claims 8 and 15 recite additional element of “memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable memory”. 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 claim 2, the claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the claim1 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 13, the claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 18, the claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claim 20, the claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, claims 1-20 are rejected. See the rejection below.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s amendment and 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.
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 independent claim 8 recites “obtaining first audio data from a user device configured to perform a plurality of communication operations with a workspace 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; 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 determining whether the first communication operation at least partially matches a 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, presenting the first request summary as a first reset point to train one or more machine learning models”. These activities reflect perceiving information, analyzing and extracting meaning, deciding or selecting an operation based on that meaning, checking whether the operating matches authorized operations and if authorized, presenting the request summary as a reset point to train ML models.
[Abstract idea indicators]
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.
Determining whether an operation matches authorized operations --- rule-based decision-making, which is a form of organizing human activity / mental process.
Presenting a summary as a reset point --- outputting information; no specific technical mechanism for training is recited.
These steps are information processing and decision-making — activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and that courts/USPTO treat as abstract ideas.
Even though the claim references machine learning and “rules/policies,” these are recited functionally, without technical detail about how they are implemented in a non-conventional way.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong One:Yes — the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (mental processes + organizing human activity).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a practical application?
The claim must apply the abstract idea in a way that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Here:
The claim applies the abstract idea in the context of communication operations between a user device and a workspace device.
However, the claim does not recite how the ML algorithm is implemented in a novel way, how the rules/policies are structured to improve system performance, or any specific technical solution to a technical problem.
The “workspace device” and “authorized operations” context is a field-of-use limitation — it confines the idea to a specific environment but doesn’t change the nature of the abstract idea.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong Two:No — the claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application that improves computer technology.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
Now we ask: Do the additional claim elements (individually or in combination) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
Generic components: memory, processor, user device — standard computer hardware.
Machine learning algorithm: recited at a high level, with no specific architecture, training process, or unconventional application.
Rules and policies: generic data structures for authorization checks.
Training reset point: conceptually interesting, but claimed at a functional level without specific technical means.
The combination appears to be a generic computer implementation of an abstract workflow.
Conclusion for Step 2B:No inventive concept is apparent — the claim recites known computer components executing generic functions.
With respect to claims 1 and 15, the claim is similar to claim 8 and claims 1 and 15 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 2-7, 8-14, and 16-20, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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