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
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 2/18/26 for patent application 18/809,029.
2. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10- 13, 16-18 and 20 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 stand objected to for informalities, particularly with respect to a typographical error. Applicant amended Claims 2 and 12 to correct the typographical error. Applicant submits that these objections raised in the Office Action have been fully resolved and request that the objections be withdrawn.
Examiner Response
The claim objections for claims 2&12 are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#2
Even assuming, in arguendo, that the Examiner's characterization of the claims as being directed to "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" is applicable, the claims would still be patent eligible under either Step 2A or Step 2B of the Alice framework.
In CORE WIRELESS LICENSING v. LG ELECS., INC (Fed. Cir. 2018), the
Federal Circuit held that "an improved user-interface for an electronic device" is not abstract under Alice. Similarly, IN TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. CQG, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit found that a specific, structured GUI that improved speed, accuracy, and usability in trading platforms was "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Here, representative Claim 1, recites: generat[ing] a claim interface comprising, at least, an intelligent
search feature having an input field ... configured to: detect individual character inputs within the input field of the intelligent search feature; for each detected character input into the input field, (i) filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters currently entered in the input field, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field using a trained machine learning model ..., and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu of the claim interface; and based on a selection input by the call representative of a search result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object corresponding to the selected search result within the intelligent search feature.(Emphasis added.)
Similar to TRADING TECHNOLOGIES, the aforementioned features of Claim 1 relate to "speed, accuracy, and usability" with respect to information that a call representative can retrieve in context of an ongoing call session. Therefore, the claims, as represented by Claim 1, are patent eligible.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations (filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters currently entered in the input field, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field., and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu; and based on a selection input by the call representative of a search result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object corresponding to the selected search result within the search feature) are part of the identified abstract idea.
The claimed invention is unlike the invention in Core Wireless, where courts looked to the specification and determined that the user interface was improved upon.
On pages 9-10 of the decision recites: “ The specification confirms that these claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens. It teaches that the prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, requiring a user “to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/functionality.” ’020 patent at 1:47-49. Because small screens “tend to need data and functionality divided into many layers or views, ” id, at 1:29-30, prior art interfaces required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired data or functionality, id. at 1:29-37. That process could “seem slow, complex and difficult to learn, particularly to novice users. "id, at 1:45-46. The disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together “a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data, ” which can be accessed directly from the main menu. Id. at 2:55-59. Displaying selected data or functions of interest in the summary window allows the user to see the most relevant data or functions “without actually opening the application up. "id. at 3:53-55, The speed of a users navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated, "id, at 2:35-39. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, “only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality. ” id. at 3:2-3. This language dearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.
Whereas in the instant specification, discloses:
[0058] As an example, the user 194 may initiate a first notice of loss on the user’s computing device 190 via one or more application sessions and begin, but not complete, an information gathering process for a claim event (e.g., a vehicle collision). The dynamic content generator 155 can automatically save a state of a claim file 112 corresponding to the information gathering process for the user 194, such that the user 194 does not need to repeat any portion of the information gathering process. In certain examples, a call center representative 196 may be informed by the computing system 100 that a claim file 112 has been started by a particular user 194. The call center representative 196 may initiate a call session with the user 194 and view the assistance interface presented via execution of the assistance application 197, which may reflect the current state of the claim file 112 to enable the information gathering process to proceed based on the information already provided by the user 194. As provided herein, the dynamic content generator 155 can cause the assistance interface to be generated on the display screen of the call center representative’s computing device 195 and implement dynamic scripting that provides the call center representative 196 with a real-time script to read during the call session with the user 194.
[0125] Examples described herein can implement engagement monitoring techniques corresponding to a user’s engagement with the various user interfaces described herein. In such examples, the system can monitor various combinations of the user’s inputs, view-time or display-time on any particular page or screen, the content presented on the display of the user’s computing device 190 at any given time, image data of the user’s face (e.g., showing a lack of interest), and the like. Based on the engagement information of a particular user 194 (e.g., a claimant or a corroborating party), the dynamic content generator 155 can dynamically adjust the content flows presented to the user 194 to maximize engagement and/or information gathering. In one example, the dynamic content generator 155 may determine, based on the engagement data received from monitoring the user 194, that the user 194 is losing interest in engaging with a particular user interface or content item, and adjust the content presented on the service application 192 or browser application in order to increase the user’s engagement. The determination of engagement level of a user 194 by the dynamic content generator 155 may be based on a confidence threshold or probability of the user 194 exiting the application within a given time frame (e.g., the next five seconds).
[There is no improvement to the technology of the GUI (the claim interface ). The user interface is recited at a high level of generality and is being used as tool to implement the identified abstract idea.
Therefore the claims in the instant invention are unlike the claims in Core Wireless v LG.
In the Federal Circuit decision in TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. CQG, INC., on page 6, the court stated, “the claims require a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a pre scribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.”
As was explained above, the claim interface is recited at a high level of generality and is being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims are unlike the claims in Trading Technologies.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#3
Additionally, the claims recite "additional elements" which integrate the
alleged abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP, "additional elements" include elements that provide "an improvement to other technology or technical field," as well as elements that apply 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." See MPEP 2106.5(e). Additional elements also include elements are specific, technical, and extend beyond the capabilities of the human mind. See TrendSpider LLC (PTAB, 2024; appealed from USPTO rejection) (elements of a method claim that cannot be performed in the human mind are recognizable as additional elements). With this guidance in mind, Claim 1 recites additional elements that include: generat[ing] a claim interface comprising, at least, an intelligent search feature having an input field e detect individual character inputs within the input field of the intelligent search feature; for each detected character input into the input field, (i) filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters currently entered in the input field, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field using a trained machine learning model ..., and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu of the claim interface; and The "additional elements" integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and as such, confer subject matter eligibility onto the claims.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A PTAB decision does not represent Office policy and moreover a PTAB decision is fact specific to the case being decided.
The limitations (filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters currently entered in the input field, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field, and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu) is part of the identified abstract idea.
The additional elements (the claim interface, intelligent search feature, and trained machine learning model) are recited at high level of generality and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argue#4
Further, under Step 2B, subject matter eligibility can be found by
"consider[ing] the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." ALICE, 573 U.S. at 217. Given the specificity and technological solution provided by the claims, the claims should also be deemed subject matter eligible under Step 2B.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not patent eligible under STEP 2B, see the 35 USC 101 rejection below.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#5
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
The Office Action relies heavily on Hernandez, alleging that Hernandez discloses "generate an insurance interface for a call representative to interact with a user during a cell session...." Office Action, page 8. However, in contrast to Claim 1, Hernandez discloses, at para. [0005]:
(1) receiving a digitized data stream corresponding to a spoken
conversation between a customer and a representative; (2) converting
the data stream to a text stream; (3) determining one or more
keywords from the text stream; (4) comparing the one or more keywords with a history of keywords that have previously been searched; and/or (5) searching a database for information related to
the one or more keywords that have not been previously searched.
(Emphasis added.)
As illustrated, Hernandez converts speech to text, tokenizes the text into
keywords, and possibly searches for results for the keyword. See Hernandez, para. [0005], and also paras. [0006] - [0008] and [0030] - [0035]. However, Hernandez does not disclose or suggest "detect[ing] individual characters character inputs within the input field," and "for each detected character input into the input field" performing each of "filter[ing] a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters currently entered in the input field ... rank[ing] the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field using a trained machine learning model ..., and provid[ing] a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu of the claim interface," as recited with Claim 1.
In relevant portions, Jensen discloses "receiving ... a keyword related to
information provided by a user to an agent during a call" and "generating ... follow- up questions to be displayed on a user device ... based on the keyword." See, Jensen, Abstract.
Accordingly, Jensen does not address the deficiencies of Hernandez, and
Claim 1 is allowable over Hernandez and Jensen. Claims 2-10 depend from Claim 1 and are therefore allowable for reasons that include those stated with Claim 1.
Independent Claims 11 and 20 include language of Claim 1, and are
therefore allowable over the cited references for reasons stated with Claim 1. Likewise, Claims 12-19 also depend from independent Claim 11 and are therefore also allowable for reasons that include those stated with Claim 1.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendments to the claim, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to a system, method and computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A computing system comprising: a network communication interface;
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
generate a claim interface comprising, at least, an intelligent search feature having an input field suitable for use by a call representative to interact with a user during an ongoing call session, wherein the claim interface is configured to:
detect individual character inputs within the input field of the intelligent search feature by the call representative during the call session;
for each detected character, input into the input field, (i) filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters entered in the input field, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field using a trained machine learning model for ranking a set of search results based on relevancy to the call session, and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu of the claim interface; and
and
based on a selection input by the call representative of a search result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object corresponding to the selected search result, within the intelligent search feature.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a commercial interaction (business relations), steps for assisting a user with a call representative to assist in processing of claims (e.g. for use by a call representative to interact with a user during an ongoing call session, filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters for ranking a set of search results based on relevancy to the call session, and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu and based on a selection input by the call representative of a search result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object corresponding to the selected search result, within the search feature).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a Commercial Interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally the claims are also, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process, more specifically a concept performed mentally by a human with a pen and paper, (steps for assisting a user with a call representative to assist in processing of claims), (e.g., for use by a call representative to interact with a user during an ongoing call session, filter a set of search results from one or more databases that match characters, (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters for ranking a set of search results based on relevancy to the call session, and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu and based on a selection input by the call representative of a search result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object corresponding to the selected search result, within the search feature).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a certain method of a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 11,20 are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 11,20 includes the following additional elements:
-A network communication interface
-One or more processors
-A claim interface
- A memory
-A database
-An intelligent search feature
-A trained machine learning model
-A non-transitory computer readable medium
The network communication interface, one or more processors, database, claim interface, memory, intelligent search feature, trained machine learning model and a non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1, 11, 20 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1,11, 20 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and a Mental Process and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims (2-10, 12-19) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
No Prior Art
Based on prior art search results, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders
obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, the prior art does not teach the limitations from claims 1, 11, 20:
“detect individual character inputs within the input field of the intelligent search feature by the call representative during the call session; for each detected character input into the input field, (i) filter a set of search results from the one or more databases that match the detected character characters currently entered in the input field, and (ii) rank the set of search results matching characters currently entered in the input field using a trained machine learning model for ranking a set of search results based on relevancy to the call session, and (iii) provide a ranked list of search results in a selectable menu of the claim interface; and based on a selection input by the call representative of a search result in the selectable menu, generate a static filter object corresponding to the selected search result within the intelligent search feature.”
The closest prior art of record:
US 2024/0403347 to Hernandez, discloses, “A computer-implemented method for presenting relevant information to a customer service representative of a business may include receiving a digitized data stream corresponding to a spoken conversation between a customer and a representative; converting the data stream to a text stream; determining one or more keywords from the text stream; comparing the one or more keywords with a history of keywords that have previously been searched; and/or searching a database for information related to the one or more keywords that have not been previously searched. As a result of the keyword search, information about topics that the customer is interested in, may be located and displayed on a customer service representative display to facilitate the customer service representative timely relaying the information found by the keyword search to enhance the customer experience. Exemplary keywords may relate to insurance and financial services, such as “auto,” “home,” “life,” “insurance,” or “vehicle loan.”
US Patent 11,343,377 to Jensen et al, herein Jensen, discloses, “ Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for determining a transfer option for transferring a call. One of the methods include receiving, by a call assistant engine, a keyword related to information provided by a user to an agent during a call; generating, by the call assistant engine, follow-up questions to be displayed on a user device of the agent in an interactive format, the first follow-up question being generated based on the keyword, each of the following follow-up questions being generated based on an answer of the agent to the previous question; and determining, by the call assistant engine, based on answers of the agent to the follow-up questions, a transfer option for transferring the call.”
US Patent 11,706,337 to Mitchem et al, discloses, “A communication session may be established between a customer device and a customer service representative device. An artificial intelligence assistant may access the communication session and receive an input. The artificial intelligence assistant may process in the input. The artificial intelligence assistant may determine one or more characteristics of the input. The artificial intelligence assistant may determine an output based on the characteristics of the input. The artificial intelligence assistant may communicate the determined output to the customer service representative.”
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 MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 4/27/2026
Prosecution Insights