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 . This Office Action is responsive to the communications filed in 13 September 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending,
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented method” directed to receiving information, determining an intent from the information, generating an action based on the determined intent, and communicating a result.
The limitations of “receiving… an utterance or … an interface action, and … application context….; generating a context variable data structure associated with the thread… determining … an intent of the user …. inserting: the utterance or the indication of the interface action, at least a portion of the data in the context variable data structure, and the object schema into the prompt; generating… a list comprising one or more executable actions based on the prompt, wherein the generating the list comprises: deriving one or more parameters from (i) the utterance or the indication of the interface action, (ii) the data in the context variable data structure, or (iii) both, and filling one or more input argument slots of the one or more executable actions with a version of the one or more parameters that conforms to the object schema; executing the one or more executable actions based on the version of the one or more parameters to obtain an output; and sending the output or a communication derived from the output to the user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea categories of organizing human activity (managing user-application interactions), mental processes (interpreting intent and deriving parameters), or mathematical concepts/data manipulation (receiving, storing, and restructuring data).That is, other than reciting the use of a “ machine learning model” and "generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or manually. For example, but for the “using a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model” and “using a machine model “ language, steps of “ receiving… an utterance or … an interface action, and … application context….; generating a context variable data structure associated with the thread… determining … an intent of the user …. inserting: the utterance or the indication of the interface action, at least a portion of the data in the context variable data structure, and the object schema into the prompt; generating… a list comprising one or more executable actions based on the prompt, wherein the generating the list comprises: deriving one or more parameters from (i) the utterance or the indication of the interface action, (ii) the data in the context variable data structure, or (iii) both, and filling one or more input argument slots of the one or more executable actions with a version of the one or more parameters that conforms to the object schema; executing the one or more executable actions based on the version of the one or more parameters to obtain an output; and sending the output or a communication derived from the output to the user” are all fundamentally rooted in data collection, analysis, and display. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the organizing human activity (managing user-application interactions), mental processes (interpreting intent and deriving parameters), or mathematical concepts/data manipulation (receiving, storing, and restructuring data) grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – “using a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model” to access, based on an intent, a prompt and an object schema.” The computer device in all the limitations of the claim is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer functions of data collection, analysis, and display) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “using a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model” to access, based on an intent, a prompt and an object schema amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Independent claim 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gruber et al. (US 2012/0265528 A1) – Context-aware intent processing
Nahamoo et al. (US 2019/0304445 A1) – Workflow orchestration
Semeniuk et al. (US 11,777,874 B1) – Thread/session context
Terry et al. (US 2019/0207876 A1) – Intent determination
Kelkar et al. (US 12,282,743 B2) – Structured conversational generation
Mahabaleshwarkar et al. (US 2024/0184991 A1) – Structured data and conversational generation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN HOPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thr - 6:45-4:15, Fri - 6:45-3:15, Alt. Fri Off.
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, Stephen S Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
DARRIN HOPE
Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights