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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/07/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13, 17, and 20 are canceled. The Examiner notes that claims 1-7 were previously withdrawn as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
Claims 23-32 are new.
Claims 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are currently amended.
Claims 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-32 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-32 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 8 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method for providing resolution guidance to a help center agent, comprising:
providing a current user utterance from a customer to an intent engine;
determining, by the intent engine, an intent of the current user utterance as a user intent;
converting, by an embedding language model, the user intent into a user intent embedding, wherein the user intent embedding comprises a numerical vector having one or more dimensions representing at least one of syntactic features, semantic features, or sentiment;
identifying one or more stored intent embeddings based on a similarity with the user intent embedding;
generating, by a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model, one or more suggested resolutions in response to the current user utterance, wherein the GenAI model generates the one or more suggested resolutions using a prompts comprising: the current user utterance, historical interactions related to the one or more stored intent embeddings selected from a corpus of historical interactions, and domain-specific documentation associated with one or more stored intent embeddings; and
providing, to the help center agent, the one or more suggested resolutions.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Commercial interactions fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial interactions are related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between a help center agent and a user). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations convert the user intent into a user intent comprising a numerical vector having one or more dimensions representing at least one of syntactic features, semantic features, or sentiment. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 11-12, 14-15, and 23-27 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 8 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities, mental processes, and mathematical concepts).
Claim 11 recites the additional element “the prompt.” Claim 12 recites the additional elements “embeddings” and “in the prompt.” Claim 14 recites the additional element “wherein the GenAI model is a pre-trained large language model fined-tuned”. Claim 15 recites the additional element “wherein the intent engine comprises a large language model (LLM) trained to”. Claim 23 recites the additional element “by the GenAI model.” Claim 24 recites the additional element “embeddings.” Claim 25 recites the additional elements “by the embedding language model” and “embedding.” Claim 26 recites the additional element “embeddings.” Claim 27 recites the additional elements “by the large language model,” “with the large language model” and “one or more modified hyperparameters of the large language model.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 16 recites (additional elements underlined):
A processing system for providing resolution guidance to a help center agent, comprising:
a historical interactions datastore having a corpus of historical interactions stored therein;
a knowledge datastore having a corpus of domain-specific documentation stored therein;
a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to:
provide a current user utterance from a customer to an intent engine;
determine, by the intent engine, an intent of the current user utterance as a user intent;
convert, by an embedding language model, the user intent into a user intent embedding, wherein the user intent embedding comprises a numerical vector having one or more dimensions representing at least one of syntactic features, semantic features, or sentiment;
identifying one or more stored intent embeddings based on a similarity with the user intent embedding;
generate, by a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model, one or more suggested resolutions in response to the current user utterance, wherein the GenAI model generates the one or more suggested resolutions using a prompt comprising the current user utterance, historical interactions related to the one or more store intent embeddings selected from the corpus of historical interactions, and domain-specific documentation associated with the one or more stored intent embeddings; and
provide, to the help center agent, the one or more suggested resolutions.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 8, claim 16 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities, mental processes, and mathematical concepts). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 8, claim 16 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 18-19, 21-22, and 28-32 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 16 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities, mental processes, and mathematical concepts).
Claim 18 recites the additional element “the prompt.” Claim 19 recite the additional elements of “wherein the one or more processors further cause the processing system to,” “in the prompt,” and “embeddings”. Claim 21 recites the additional element “wherein the GenAI model is a pre-trained large language model fined-tuned”. Claim 22 recites the additional element “wherein the intent engine comprises a large language model (LLM) trained to”. Claim 28 recites the additional elements “embeddings” and “the one or more processors further cause the processing system to”. Claim 29 recites the additional elements “the one or more processors further cause the processing system to,” “embeddings,” and “by the embedding language model.” Claim 30 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors further cause the processing system to” and “embeddings.” Claim 31 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors further cause the processing system to,” “by with the large language model,” “with the large language model,” and “one or more modified hyperparameters of the large language model.” Claim 32 recites the additional elements “the one or more processors further cause the processing system to” and “by the GenAI model.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes after a comprehensive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
a. Ghoche et al. (US 2024/0386213 A1) discloses an autonomous customer support Chatbot Agent which utilizes a large language model to aid in implementing a workflow to solve a customer issue. A natural language workflow policy may be selected by an admin, along with tools such as API calls. The large language model determines the implementation details for the workflow based on the workflow policy and the selected tools.
b. Haikin et al. (US 2025/0165720 A1) discloses a method in a contact center for generating insights from conversation data derived from interactions and storing the insights in an index. The method may include: determining an insight type; based on the insight type, determining inputs including a question prompt, answer prefix, and relevant portion of the conversation data; inputting the inputs into a LLM configured to receive the inputs and generate output text answering a question contained in the question prompt pursuant to an answer form suggested by the answer prefix given content contained in the relevant portion of the conversation data; generating the output text via operation of the LLM; transforming the output text of the first insight via a sentence transformer into vector embedding representative of a semantic meaning of the output text; and storing the computed vector embedding of the first insight in the index.
c. Patil et al. (US 2025/0278688 A1) discloses a system and method for automatically generating evaluation forms from interaction recordings comprising: identifying one or more interaction intents from an interaction transcript; generating one or more evaluation categories for the one or more interaction intents using machine learning; generating evaluation questions for the one or more evaluation categories using machine learning; and providing an evaluation form based on the evaluation questions.
While the prior art teach some of the limitations of the claimed invention, they do not appear to teach the following limitations in the context of the claimed invention when viewed as a whole: “A method for providing resolution guidance to a help center agent, comprising: providing a current user utterance from a customer to an intent engine; determining, by the intent engine, an intent of the current user utterance as a user intent; converting, by an embedding language model, the user intent into a user intent embedding, wherein the user intent embedding comprises a numerical vector having one or more dimensions representing at least one of syntactic features, semantic features, or sentiment; identifying one or more stored intent embeddings based on a similarity with the user intent embedding; generating, by a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model, one or more suggested resolutions in response to the current user utterance, wherein the GenAI model generates the one or more suggested resolutions using a prompts comprising: the current user utterance, historical interactions related to the one or more stored intent embeddings selected from a corpus of historical interactions, and domain-specific documentation associated with one or more stored intent embeddings; and providing, to the help center agent, the one or more suggested resolutions,” as recited in claim 8, and “ A processing system for providing resolution guidance to a help center agent, comprising: a historical interactions datastore having a corpus of historical interactions stored therein; a knowledge datastore having a corpus of domain-specific documentation stored therein; a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to: provide a current user utterance from a customer to an intent engine; determine, by the intent engine, an intent of the current user utterance as a user intent; convert, by an embedding language model, the user intent into a user intent embedding, wherein the user intent embedding comprises a numerical vector having one or more dimensions representing at least one of syntactic features, semantic features, or sentiment; identify one or more stored intent embeddings based on a similarity with the user intent embedding; generate, by a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model, one or more suggested resolutions in response to the current user utterance, wherein the GenAI model generates the one or more suggested resolutions using a prompt comprising the current user utterance, historical interactions related to the one or more stored intent embeddings selected from the corpus of historical interactions, and domain-specific documentation associated with the one or more stored intent embeddings; and provide, to the help center agent, the one or more suggested resolutions” as recited in claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “Notwithstanding the above discussion, Applicant submits that the "[converting / convert], by an embedding language model, the user intent into a user intent embedding..." limitation does not fall within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas…. The "[converting / convert] ..." limitation describes operations performed by a machine learning model to transform text describing a user's intent (previously detected in an utterance) into a numerical vector in a high-dimensional space….Applicant respectfully submits that it is neither practical nor feasible for a human to perform the operations entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper. Rather, the operations can only be reasonably completed by a computer and are specifically tailored to a computing environment. The "[converting / convert] ..." limitation also does not fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" or the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations do not recite or set forth "fundamental economic principles or practices," "commercial or legal interactions," "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people," or "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations."
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the limitations outlined above, which exclude the additional elements, can be practically performed in the human mind as they are considered an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Therefore, the claims recite a mental process in Step 2A Prong One.
Second, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One also describe or set forth certain methods of organizing human activity because the limitations describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Commercial interactions fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial interactions are related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between a help center agent and a user). Therefore, the claims also recite a certain method of organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One.
Third, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One as describe or set forth mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations convert the user intent into a user intent comprising a numerical vector having one or more dimensions representing at least one of syntactic features, semantic features, or sentiment. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, the claims also recite a mathematical concept in Step 2A Prong One.
Argument: “Amended claims 8 and 16 are patent-eligible because the claims recite additional elements (e.g., additional elements identified at Step 2A Prong One) that, in combination with limitations alleged to recite abstract idea(s), improve upon another technology….Like the disputed claims in Ex parte Desjardins, amended claims 8 and 16 similarly constitute "an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates." (Id.) For example, Applicant submits that "determining ... an intent of the current user utterance as a user intent," "converting ... the user intent into a user intent embedding...," "identifying one or more stored intent embeddings based on a similarity with the user intent embedding," and using the one or more stored intent embeddings as a prompt may improve the ability of the generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model to generate one or more suggested resolutions. (Specification , ¶¶ 0106-0107). The claims additionally reflect the disclosed improvement by reciting steps to "[generate], by a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model, one or more suggested resolutions in response to the current user utterance, wherein the GenAI model generates the one or more suggested resolutions using a prompt comprising the current user utterance, historical interactions related to the one or more stored intent embeddings selected from a corpus of historical interactions, and domain-specific documentation associated with the one or more stored intent embeddings."
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality and amount to adding the words “apply it”. Unlike the claimed invention in Ex parte Desjardins which provided an improvement to machine learning itself, here the machine learning is merely used as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101” (p. 18 of Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)).
With regard to the argument that the claimed invention provides an improvement to another technology by improving the ability to generate one or more suggested resolutions, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Providing resolution guidance to a help center agent is an abstract idea because it is considered at least a commercial interaction and managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The alleged improvement is entirely in the realm of the abstract idea. Similar to the claimed invention in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2018), the advance here lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.
Argument: “Finally, despite the Office Action's assertions to the contrary, amended claims 8 and 16 are also patent-eligible under Step 2B of the Revised Guidance because they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Even if amended claims 8 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea, arguendo, Applicant respectfully submits the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because they recite additional element(s) that are not "well-understood, routine and conventional in the field."
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Office Action does not take the position that any of the additional elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two that would warrant an analysis in Step 2B to determine that the additional element also amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Second, "the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine" (see p. 16 of BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018). Third, viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
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 SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights