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 .
Detailed Action
The effective filing date of the present application is 07/31/2023.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 15, and 17 – 20, are pending, claims 3 and 16 presently cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 03/12/2026 have been entered and considered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble reads awkward: “An apparatus for comprising:…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4 – 15, and 17 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and an apparatus (machine); thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories considered appropriate subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth interactions between a customer and a customer service agent – either a chatbot or a human agent. In order to select either agent, a probability threshold (a rule) is followed. Thus, the claims describe certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. It is noted that the above identified managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people can encompass activity of a single person, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (a customer device) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claims 14 and 20, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for implementing a customer support interface, comprising:
generating, via a customer device, the customer support interface for a customer to engage in a chat session with a chatbot, wherein an option to engage in a chat session with a human agent is made unavailable on the customer support interface;
receiving, by the chatbot, a first query from the customer;
determining, by the chatbot, a first reply to the first query and generating the first reply for display on the customer support interface;
after the first reply is generated, determining, using a prediction engine, an overall probability value that providing the customer with the option to engage in a chat session with a human agent would improve a likelihood of a positive outcome for the customer, based on the first reply, the first query, and one or more customer-associated feature data including validity information associated with at least the first reply, the validity information indicating a degree of validity between the first reply and the first query;
determining whether the overall probability value satisfies a predetermined condition;
in response to determining that the overall probability value satisfies a predetermined condition, making available on the customer support interface a selectable interface element representing the option to engage in a chat session with a human agent; and
in response to the selectable interface element being selected, initiating, via the chatbot, a live chat session between the customer device and an agent device of a human agent and transferring the customer from the chat session with the chatbot to the live chat session with the human agent.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1, 14, and 20, recite only the following additional elements:
a[n] interface;
a customer device;
a chatbot;
a prediction engine;
a selectable interface element;
initiating, via the chatbot, and an agent device, and transferring from the chat session with the chatbot;
an apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising at least one instruction.
Most of these elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0035-0036 and 0039-0040], and Figures 6 and 7 as filed. See also [0042 and 0044] describing devices having ordinary processing and communication capabilities. Note that chatbot is also defined as a computer program within the disclosure.
Other elements (prediction element) are defined as a program or algorithm for processing data. Specification [0051]. Thus, well known by one skilled in the art as performing the abstract idea on a computer: determining a probability of a better outcome with a human agent interaction. This element also instructs one to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). The Examiner points to a nominal definition of the algorithm employed; reciting a model merely outputting some result, and without significant details of the training or modelling required. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of: (an interface; a customer device; a chatbot; a prediction engine; a selectable interface element; initiating, via the chatbot, and an agent device, and transferring from the chat session with the chatbot; an apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising at least one instruction), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19, contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 14. Recitations to a first and second probability value, validity of the value, probability value greater than a threshold, option to engage with a human, and executing a rule at the start of the session, are all refinements of selecting either agent for conducting the interaction between a customer and the agent. These values further define how or when a probability threshold is followed; thus, describing a rule. These limitations further recite no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract idea within a computer environment. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 4 and 17 contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claim 1 and 14. Recitations to the uplift model is a further refinement to the modelling or algorithm employed to perform the abstract idea. This includes a nominal definition of the algorithm employed; reciting a model merely outputting some result, and without significant details of the training or modelling required. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 7 – 10 contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to visually hiding, disabling, and making available or unavailable the selectable interface element, are refinements of selecting either agent for conducting the interaction between a customer and the agent. These limitations further recite no more than simply instructing to display a generic interface or not; i.e.; within a computer environment. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1, 2, 4 – 15, and 17 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant traverses the prior rejection of all previous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See pages 9 and 10. Applicant remarks this previous rejection was improper and has amended the claims to further clarify the claimed subject matter. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant that the previous application of the Alice/Mayo test was improper.
Current Office examination procedure requires analysis to determine eligibility per revised Step 2A. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. As noted above, the Examiner concludes that the amended claims set forth a method to mange interactions between a customer and a customer service agent – either a chatbot or a human agent. In order to select either agent, a probability threshold (a rule) is followed. Thus, the claims describe the management of this personal behavior or the interactions between people. (It is noted that the identified managing personal behavior or interactions between people can encompass activity of a single person, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (a customer device) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping). The actions of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people is classified within the certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The Examiner remarks that the amendments have added more elements that describe aspects of the customer interactions. Newly added recitations of validity of a reply is aimed at analyzing the interaction itself and is directed toward putting forth an effective reply. This would serve to manage the interaction, which is squarely pointed to the abstract idea. After determining that these claims recite a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, the Examiners then evaluated whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two.
Evaluation at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, as set forth at MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). As detailed above, the Examiner maintains that the amended claims are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). The amended claims recite only the following additional elements: an interface; a customer device; a chatbot; a prediction engine; a selectable interface element; an apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising at least one instruction.
Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0035-0036 and 0039-0040], and Figures 6 and 7 as filed. See also [0042 and 0044] describing devices having ordinary processing and communication capabilities. Note that chatbot is also defined as a computer program within the disclosure. The Examiner remarks that Applicant has amended the claims to add a customer device. This device however, suffers the same fate as the other additional elements as detailed above.
A final amendment was to include initiate a live chat session and transferring the customer. This option is however, is conditioned on satisfying a probability level and making a selectable element available on the interface. As exemplified at Step 204, this is a rule-based decision for who the customer can interact with. Because this then proceeds on the same interface to the next level of interaction, it represents a continuation of the initial interaction and has not improved the use of any technology or device. As a result, this is still instructing the system (and technology) to operate in its ordinary fashion to perform an interaction. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner also property continued analysis at the second part of the Alice/Mayo test – Step 2B. Here, as detailed above, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The additional elements noted above amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next discusses rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See page 10. In view if the amendments to the claims and upon further research, the Examiner agrees with Applicant that the combination of several prior art sources, combined with an NPL source, does not serve to teach or suggest all the features of amended claim 1. This same distinction would serve to be analogous for amended claims 14 and 20. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. A further discussion is below.
Claims Distinguished over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Cited prior art discloses a system and method for managing and transitioning automated chat conversations, (Tamblyn). Other art teaches handoffs between bots and humans, (Ringhiser). The Examiner even cited NPL that teaches user interface design. However, the Examiner points to the recited combinations of elements that are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art of record within amended claims 1, 14, and 20; specifically: A method for implementing a customer support interface, comprising: the customer support interface for a customer, wherein an option to engage in a chat session with a human agent is made unavailable on the customer support interface; after the first reply is generated, determining, using a prediction engine, an overall probability value that providing the customer with the option to engage in a chat session with a human agent would improve a likelihood of a positive outcome for the customer, based on the first reply, the first query, and one or more customer-associated feature data including validity information associated with at least the first reply; in response to determining that the overall probability value satisfies a predetermined condition, making available on the customer support interface a selectable interface element representing the option to engage in a chat session with a human agent.
Dependent claims 2, 4 – 13, 15, and 17 – 19, based on their dependency to claims 2 and 7, and containing further limiting recitations, are also not disclosed by prior art. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4 – 15, and 17 – 20, are distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights