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.
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 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 1 recites “receiving, at a device and via a natural language interface agent, an input prompt from a user interface; decomposing, by the device, the input prompt into one or more tasks for performance to produce an answer to the input prompt; selecting, by the device, one or more external resources registered in a resource directory for the natural language interface agent based on a semantic relevance between the one or more tasks and information regarding the one or more external resources stored in the resource directory; and providing, by the device, the answer to the user interface via the natural language interface agent by performing the one or more tasks using the one or more external resources”.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite obtaining audio, obtaining and comparing multiple versions of transcription and determining the final version.
[Abstract idea indicators]
Receiving a query from a user—a task humans routinely perform mentally or with conventional tools.
Analyzing request to infer a purpose and tasks is an activity of comprehension and extraction of meaning, i.e., a cognitive process.
Mapping them and selecting a resource are decision-making and planning steps that are mental processes.
Providing an answer is also a task humans routinely perform mentally or with conventional tools.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. 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.
Step 2B — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims add generic, well-understood computer components (memory and processor) and broadly recite use of “speech recognition algorithm” 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 claims recite high-level, result-oriented steps (e.g., “receiving,” “decomposing,” “selecting”, “providing”) 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.
With respect to claims 11 and 20, the claim is similar to claim 1 and claims 11 and 20 recite additional element of “processor”, “memory” and “non-transitory, computer-readable medium”. 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.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 20 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion — Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anthicipated by Detmer et al., (US Pub. 2025/0126081, priority date: Oct. 13, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Detmer discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a device and via a natural language interface agent, an input prompt from a user interface (Figs. 1 and 2, step 202, [0044][0046] receiving utterance/messages via a user interface, e.g., ‘I want to learn more about 529 savings plans’);
decomposing, by the device, the input prompt into one or more tasks for performance to produce an answer to the input prompt (Figs. 1 and 2, step 204, [0045]-[0047] parsing and analyzing the utterance, identifying the keywords ‘529 savings plans’);
selecting, by the device, one or more external resources registered in a resource directory for the natural language interface agent based on a semantic relevance between the one or more tasks and information regarding the one or more external resources stored in the resource directory (Figs. 1 and 2, steps 204-208, [0041][0045]-[0048] invoking one or more machine learning classification models to classify the incoming utterances as belonging to a defined user intent and utilizing data providers 118 which comprise external data sources, e.g. databases, data feeds, API endpoints, etc. and associating the utterance with a defined user intent of ‘529 plan’);
providing, by the device, the answer to the user interface via the natural language interface agent by performing the one or more tasks using the one or more external resources (Figs. 1 and 2, steps 210 and 214, [0049]-[0051] generating an appropriate response and transmitting to the client computing device).
Regarding claim 2, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the natural language interface agent uses a large language model (LLM) to perform the one or more tasks (Fig. 1, [0050] generating a prompt for input to one or more LLM services 116).
Regarding claim 3, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the one or more tasks comprises making an application programming interface (API) call to a particular resource from among the one or more external resources ([0039][0041] “ NLP services 114 can be application programming interfaces (APIs) that are called by information retrieval application 108 using one or more function calls including parameters such as the user utterances”).
Regarding claim 4, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the one or more tasks comprises performing a database lookup using a particular resource from among the one or more external resources (Fig. 1, [0041][0053][0054] searching data sources using data providers 118, which comprise external databases, to find relevant information).
Regarding claim 5, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
registering, by the device, a new external resource in the resource directory ([0041][0042] calling external data sources by information retrieval application 108 and launching an application which may access websites externally hosted).
Regarding claim 6, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 5, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the device registers at least one of: a domain of the new external resource or a specification as to how to interact with the new external resource in the resource directory ([0041][0042] accessing a company website to retrieve information, e.g., product information, account information, customer service information, and the like).
Regarding claim 7, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the one or more external resources comprise a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) system ([0052] dialog control flow module is configured with retrieval augmented generation (RAG)).
Regarding claim 8, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the resource directory is stored in a neural database (Fig. 1 and [0045] the classification models can comprise neural networks, regression models, or other machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict intent associated with a given input utterance).
Regarding claim 9, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1, and Detmer further discloses:
wherein the one or more external resources comprises a controller for a computer network ([0043] launching an app or a browser to initiate a network connection).
Regarding claims 11-19, Claims 11-19 are the corresponding system claims to method claims 1-9. Therefore, claims 11-19 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1-9 above.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 is the corresponding medium claim to method claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Detmer et al., (US Pub. 2025/0126081) in view of Vasseur et al., (US Pub. 2025/0150357, filed in Nov. 3, 2023).
Regarding claim 10, Detmer discloses the method as in claim 1.
Detmer does not explicitly teach however Vasseur does explicitly teach:
wherein the input prompt requests information regarding a computer network ([0104] a system user 802 issues a question 806 via a user interface regarding network, e.g., ‘why is my Internet connection slow?’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of dialog control flow for information retrieval system as taught by Detmer with the method of network troubleshooting using speech input as taught by Vasseur to improve the performance of the system with accomplishing a given task using Large Language Models (LLM) (Vasseur, [0067][0106]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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