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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are cancelled.
Applicant did not provide information disclosure statement.
Claims 21-23 are new claims.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 4/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection maintained.
Applicant argues on page 12-13, that the claimed invention overcomes 35 101 rejection because of the new limitations, Applicant recites
For example, Claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, "monitoring, by a scheduler service of the cloud service provider platform, system state data to determine when the criteria for initiating the task are satisfied" and "receiving, from the client device, a return message generated in response to a user interaction with the notification message, the return message including the metadata." According to Claim 1, upon receipt of this return message, the system technically initiates a second conversation by "routing the task to the selected skill identified in the metadata and executing a task flow of the selected skill to process the steps of the task." Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed metadata is not merely passively displayed for human review or organizing human activity; rather, it is utilized by the system as a functional, state-persistent token to programmatically route a task to a specialized execution module (the "selected skill").
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Monitoring when a task is satisfied, receiving data, and initiating a conversation are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. These steps clearly still fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process. In addition, the claims do not positively recite a token but merely token data. Token data corresponds to general data and adds no patentable weight to the claims.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13
This mechanism allows the digital assistant service to seamlessly resume a
computational state across asynchronous interactions, thereby improving the functioning of the computer system itself.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem of having healthcare workers perform tasks more efficiently (See para 0002 in Applicant’s specification). This problem is common among hospitals and healthcare businesses. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO.
Applicant argues on page 12-13
Because the amended claims recite a specific, multi-service architecture that technically executes modules based on routed metadata, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are integrated into a practical application and provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The architecture and modules are mere additional elements that merely are used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application which include
merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/20/2026 with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 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 natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15 recite the limitations of
…accessing one or more messages…wherein at least one message of the one or more messages comprises one or more utterances and context associated with a user session in which the one or more utterances were generated, the one or more utterances and the context being part of a first conversation…predicting… based the one or more utterances and the context, a task; generating…a task entry for the task…and wherein generating the task entry comprises: …creating a description of the task and criteria for initiating the task, generating metadata associated with the task and the context…and storing the description, the criteria, and the metadata as the task entry in a table…generating…a notification configuration entry for the task entry, and associating the notification configuration entry with the task entry… and wherein … monitoring…system state data to determine when the criteria for initiating the task are satisfied; upon detecting satisfaction of the criteriagenerating the notification based on the notification instructions, appending the metadata to the notification to generate a notification message, and sending the notification message…receiving…a return message generated in response to a user interaction with the notification message…and initiating… a second conversation different from the first conversation, wherein context for the second conversation is generated by routing the task to the selected skill identified in the metadata and executing a task flow of the selected skill to process the steps of the task.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of accessing, predicting, generating, creating, storing, monitoring, receiving, initiating, routing, associating, executing, and sending data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer-readable media, the claim language encompasses simply predicting a task based on user utterance and context in a conversation, generating a task entry, creating a task description, generating metadata, storing that task entry/task description/metadata, generating a notification configuration entry, associating the notification entry with the task, monitoring to see if task criteria is satisfied, generating/sending the notification based on task criteria, receiving return data with respect to the notification, and initiating a second conversation. The second conversation context based on routing a task and executing a task flow. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. For example, a user can predict a task based on an utterance and context of that utterance and make a task entry for it. A user can also store that task entry. Another user can also make a notification configuration entry that has notification instructions. A user can create a message and send that message with respect to the notification instructions from the other user. A user can receive response form the that message and initiate another conversation.
The claims also recite predicting tasks, monitoring tasks’ criteria, and sending messages to users. This clearly teaches task management. Applicant’s specification also states interactions between healthcare providers and patients (See para 0002).These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity ( fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of machine learning model, database, system, processing system, cloud service provider platform, API, client device, and non-transitory computer readable media.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe what the utterance consist of such as a request to schedule a task. The dependent claims further recite what further details about the notifications such as the notifications having a priority level classification. The dependent claims further recite additional elements such as a token and user interface.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites machine learning models, database, client device, cloud service provider platform (which includes digital assistant service, task manager service, notification service, and scheduler service), machine learning models, and API
Claim 8 recites system, processing systems, computer readable media, client device, database, machine learning models, cloud service provider platform (which includes digital assistant service, task manager service, notification service, and scheduler service)
Claim 15 recites non-transitory computer readable media, processors, client device, machine learning models, cloud service provider platform (which includes digital assistant service, task manager service, notification service, and scheduler service), API
Claim 21 recites user interface
Claim 23 recites token
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose computer in para 0188.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer as seen in para 0188. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Myers (US11315065B1) who teaches transcribing utterances and a predictive analysis system with respect to tasks.
Belleville (US10621575B1) who teaches token and channel data as well as the act of caching.
Sella (US20210201244A1) who teaches skills being displayed.
Khabiya (US 20120110492) who teaches closing messages with respect to message priorities.
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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights