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 is in response to application filed on 09/20/2024 in which claim 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claim 1, 15 and 20 are in independent form.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim statutory?
Claims 1-19 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-19 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
Prong 1: (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Independent claim 1: Yes, the limitation “obtaining first information input by a target object to a digital assistant;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations are analogous to a person merely observing user making an input on a object. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 15: Yes, the limitation “determining a set of historical interaction information between a target object and at least one service component; obtaining configuration information indicating a part of the set of historical interaction information that is not provided to a digital assistant for interaction with the target object” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations are analogous to a person merely observing historic user interaction data and identifying historical interaction data that is not provided to a digital assistant for interaction with the target object. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 2-19 incorporate the limitations of the parent claim 1or 15 and thus recited the same abstract idea.
Prong 2: (Does the claim recited additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?)
Independent claim 1: No. Claim 1 further recites “generating second information as a response of the digital assistant to the first information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component”. However, since claim 1 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent on a user input, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur when the user does not make that input. Consequently, claim 1 being a method claim, second information is not generated if the user does not make that input, the method stops. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 15: No. Claim 15 further recites “determining, based on the configuration information, target historical interaction information from the set of historical interaction information for use by the digital assistant in generating a response to first information input to the digital assistant by the target object”. However, since claim 15 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent on a determination that the displayed request for authorization has been viewed by the user, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur when the displayed request for authorization has not been viewed by the user. Consequently, claim 15 being a method claim, determining, based on the configuration information…and generating a response based to user input. Once again, determination portion would not occur if the user does not make the input, the method stops. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 2 recites “wherein the generating second information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component comprises: processing the first information based on the historical interaction information to generate third information; providing the third information to a target processing entity; and generating the second information based on a processing result of the third information by the target processing entity” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 3 recites, “wherein the third information comprises guidance information, and the target processing entity comprises a target model” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 4 recites, “wherein the historical interaction information comprises a record library, the record library comprises a set of record entries, and the set of record entries is generated based on a set of historical interaction events between the target object and the at least one service component.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 5 recites, “wherein a record entry comprises a knowledge element, and the knowledge element describes a service object corresponding to a respective historical interaction event.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 6 recites, “wherein the record entry further comprises at least one of: a time element, configured to indicate an occurrence time of the respective historical interaction event, an action element, configured to indicate an event type of the respective historical interaction event, a load element, configured to index the service object corresponding to the respective historical interaction event.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 7 recites, “wherein the generating second information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component comprises: determining at least one record entry associated with the first information from the set of record entries; and generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record entry” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 8 recites, “wherein determining at least one record entry associated with the first information from the set of record entries comprises: determining a set of description vectors corresponding to the set of record entries and a target description vector corresponding to the first information; and determining the at least one record entry associated with the first information from the set of record entries based on the target description vector and the set of description vectors” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 9 recites, “wherein generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record entry comprises: determining at least one record compression entry associated with the first information from a set of record compression entries, wherein each record compression entry is generated based on a plurality of record entries; and generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record compression entry.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 10 recites, “further comprising: in response to a plurality of historical interaction events satisfying a predetermined condition, removing a plurality of record entries corresponding to the plurality of historical interaction events from the record library; and generating a corresponding record compression entry based on the plurality of record entries.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 11 recites, “wherein the predetermined condition comprises: the plurality of historical interaction events have occurred for more than a threshold duration.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 12 recites, “wherein generating a corresponding record compression entry based on the plurality of record entries comprises: providing the plurality of record entries to a compression model to obtain a record compression entry corresponding to the plurality of record entries” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 13 recites, “wherein generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record entry comprises: determining interaction mode information associated with the target object, the interaction mode information indicating an interaction characteristic corresponding to at least one historical interaction event; and generating the second information based on the first information and the interaction mode information.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 14 recites, “wherein the historical interaction information is target historical interaction information, and the method further comprises: determining, based on configuration information associated with the target object, the target historical interaction information from a set of historical interaction information between the target object and the at least one service component, wherein the configuration information indicates a part of the set of historical interaction information that is not provided to the digital assistant for interaction with the target object.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 16: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 16 recites, “wherein obtaining configuration information comprises: providing a configuration interface for the digital assistant, the configuration interface presenting at least one set of configuration items; receiving a selection by the target object for a target configuration item in the at least one set of configuration items; and determining the configuration information corresponding to the selected target configuration item.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 17 recites, “wherein different configuration items in each set of configuration items correspond to different time ranges, and each configuration item indicates that a part of historical interaction information corresponding to a respective time range is not provided to the digital assistant for interaction with the target object.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 18 recites, “wherein the set of historical interaction information comprises a record library, the record library comprises a set of record entries, and the set of record entries is generated based on a set of historical interaction events between the target object and the at least one service component.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19: No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above. Claim 19 recites, “further comprising: in response to a particular record entry in the record library matching the configuration information, removing the particular record entry from the record library.” which are further mental process steps within the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Prong 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
Independent claim 1: No. Claim 1 further recites “generating second information as a response of the digital assistant to the first information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component”. However, since claim 1 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent on a user input, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur when the user does not make that input. Consequently, claim 1 being a method claim, second information is not generated if the user does not make that input, the method stops. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 15: No. Claim 1 further recites “determining, based on the configuration information, target historical interaction information from the set of historical interaction information for use by the digital assistant in generating a response to first information input to the digital assistant by the target object”. However, since claim 15 is a method claim and this limitation is contingent on a determination that the displayed request for authorization has been viewed by the user, the breadth or scope of this limitation does not actually occur when the displayed request for authorization has not been viewed by the user. Consequently, claim 15 being a method claim, determining, based on the configuration information…and generating a response based to user input. Once again, determination portion would not occur if the user does not make the input, the method stops. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2: No. The limitation “generating the second information based on a processing result of the third information by the target processing entity” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4: No, the limitation “the set of record entries is generated based on a set of historical interaction events between the target object and the at least one service component.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7: the limitation “generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record entry” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8: the limitation determining the at least one record entry associated with the first information from the set of record entries based on the target description vector and the set of description vectors” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9: the limitation generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record compression entry.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10: the limitation “generating a corresponding record compression entry based on the plurality of record entries.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13: the limitation “generating the second information based on the first information and the interaction mode information.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16: the limitation “determining the configuration information corresponding to the selected target configuration item.” is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19: No. the claim does not recite additional elements other than the abstract idea as shown above. Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 has similar limitation of claim 1, and therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Thus, claims 1-19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US PG Pub 2013/0331152) published on December 12, 2013 in view of Barakat(US PG Pub 2022/0036449) published on February 03, 2022.
As per claim 1 and 20, Khan teaches A method of processing information, comprising: obtaining first information input by a target object to a digital assistant(Para[0002][0006] a plurality of interaction between one or more users and one or more real agents for resolving a query. The data is classified into user data and real agent data, as taught by Khan); and
generating second information as a response of the digital assistant to the first information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object (Para[0006-0008][0023]virtual assistance determined and send a response to the query based on one or more parameters associated with the one or more users and parameters associated with historical resolution data used for responding to the query, as taught by Khan).
Khan does not explicitly teach response in generated based on historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component
On the other hand, Barakat teaches response in generated based on historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component(Para[0003][0005] financial concierge service to an individual provided based on obtaining fifth information regarding past financial transactions for the individual or the second financial concierge service including an interaction with a human, and activating the financial concierge service for the individual on a second electronic computing device, as taught by Barakat).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Khan invention with the teaching of Barakat because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing the financial institution to provide a dedicated
resource for an individual to turn to for help with the financial tasks.
As per claim 15, Khan teaches A method of processing information, comprising: obtaining configuration information indicating a part of the set of historical interaction information that is not provided to a digital assistant for interaction with the target object(Para[0010][0030-00031]the second set of resolution data, one or more parameters associated with the one or more users and parameters associated with historical resolution data used for responding to the query, only the historical resolution data being used to respond to a query. It is obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art that other historical parameters not being used, as taught by Khan); and
determining, based on the configuration information, target historical interaction information from the set of historical interaction information for use by the digital assistant in generating a response to first information input to the digital assistant by the target object(Para[0023] one or more parameters associated with the one or more users and parameters associated with historical resolution data used for responding to the query. Thus, the present disclosure learns and automatically scale up the virtual assistance system by adding new knowledge in one or more domains without involving manual intervention, as taught by Khan).
Khan does not explicitly teach determining a set of historical interaction information between a target object and at least one service component;
On the other hand, Barakat teaches determining a set of historical interaction information between a target object and at least one service component(Para[0003][0005] financial concierge service to an individual provided based on obtaining fifth information regarding past financial transactions for the individual or the second financial concierge service including an interaction with a human, and activating the financial concierge service for the individual on a second electronic computing device, as taught by Barakat);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Khan invention with the teaching of Barakat because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing the financial institution to provide a dedicated
resource for an individual to turn to for help with the financial tasks.
As per claim 2, the combination of Khan and Barakat teaches wherein the generating second information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component comprises:
processing the first information based on the historical interaction information to generate third information(Para[0003-0005][0051-0052], as taught by Barakat);
providing the third information to a target processing entity(Para[0003-0005][0051-0052], as taught by Barakat); and
generating the second information based on a processing result of the third information by the target processing entity(Para[0003-0005][0052-0056], as taught by Barakat).
As per claim 3, the combination of Khan and Barakat teaches wherein the third information comprises guidance information(Para[0070-0071], as taught by Khan), and the target processing entity comprises a target model(Para[0023][0027-0028][0035], as taught by Khan).
As per claim 7, the combination of Khan and Barakat teaches wherein the generating second information based at least on the first information and historical interaction information between the target object and at least one service component comprises: determining at least one record entry associated with the first information from the set of record entries(Para[0051-0055], as taught by Barakat); and generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record entry(Para[0051-0055], as taught by Barakat).
As per claim 13, the combination of Khan and Barakat teaches wherein generating the second information based on the first information and the at least one record entry comprises: determining interaction mode information associated with the target object, the interaction mode information indicating an interaction characteristic corresponding to at least one historical interaction event(Para[0008], as taught by Khan); and generating the second information based on the first information and the interaction mode information(Para[0052], as taught by Barakat).
As per claim 16, the combination of Khan and Barakat teaches wherein obtaining configuration information comprises: providing a configuration interface for the digital assistant, the configuration interface presenting at least one set of configuration items(Para[0035], as taught by Khan);
receiving a selection by the target object for a target configuration item in the at least one set of configuration items(Para[0035][0058][0084], as taught by Khan); and
determining the configuration information corresponding to the selected target configuration item(Para[0026[0035][0058], as taught by Khan).
5. Claims 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US PG Pub 2013/0331152) published on December 12, 2013 in view of Barakat(US PG Pub 2022/0036449) published on February 03, 2022 in further view of ROHATGI(US PG Pub 2024/0112681) published on April 04, 2024.
As per claim 4, the combination of Khan and Barakat teaches and the set of record entries is generated based on a set of historical interaction events between the target object and the at least one service component(Para[0006-0008][0023]virtual assistance determined and send a response to the query based on one or more parameters associated with the one or more users and parameters associated with historical resolution data used for responding to the query, as taught by Khan).
the combination of Khan and Barakat Does not teach wherein the historical interaction information comprises a record library, the record library comprises a set of record entries,
On the other hand, ROHATGI teaches wherein the historical interaction information comprises a record library, the record library comprises a set of record entries(Para[0036] historical information library 170 includes interaction records 176, which includes an interaction record 172 and an interaction record, as taught by ROHATGI) ,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Khan and Barakat invention with the teaching of ROHATGI because doing so would
result in increased efficiency by allowing the system storing previous interaction for future use.
As per claim 5, the combination of Khan, Barakat and ROHATGI teaches wherein a record entry comprises a knowledge element, and the knowledge element describes a service object corresponding to a respective historical interaction event(Para[0006-0008][0023], as taught by Khan).
As per claim 6, the combination of Khan, Barakat and ROHATGI teaches wherein the record entry further comprises at least one of: a time element, configured to indicate an occurrence time of the respective historical interaction event, an action element(Para[0006-0008], as taught by Khan), configured to indicate an event type of the respective historical interaction event, a load element, configured to index the service object corresponding to the respective historical interaction event.
As per claim 18, the combination of Khan, Barakat and ROHATGI teaches wherein the set of historical interaction information comprises a record library, the record library comprises a set of record entries(Para[0036] historical information library 170 includes interaction records 176, which includes an interaction record 172 and an interaction record, as taught by ROHATGI), and the set of record entries is generated based on a set of historical interaction events between the target object and the at least one service component(Para[0006-0008], as taught by Khan).
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US PG Pub 2013/0331152) published on December 12, 2013 in view of Barakat(US PG Pub 2022/0036449) published on February 03, 2022 in further view of ROHATGI(US PG Pub 2024/0112681) published on April 04, 2024 in further view of Zhang(US PG Pub 2014/0082660) published on March 20, 2014.
As per claim 19, the combination of Khan, Barakat and ROHATGI does not teach further comprising: in response to a particular record entry in the record library matching the configuration information, removing the particular record entry from the record library.
On the other hand, Zhang teaches further comprising: in response to a particular record entry in the record library matching the configuration information, removing the particular record entry from the record library(Para[0049] old content deleted, and the initial state 308 may therefore represent a system state as it exists at a particular instant of time, for example at the time that a query requesting an estimate of ad inventory is submitted to the system. It should be appreciated that the initial state 308 represents a particular physical state based on video content representative of physical display output, records of past events defined by physical interactions with client devices, as taught by Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the
invention to modify Khan, Rohatgi and Barakat invention with the teaching of Zhang because doing so
would result in increased visibility by removing unwanted content from the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-3069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6:30PM 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, William L Bashore can be reached at 571-272-4088. 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.
/RAYEEZ R CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174 Thursday, June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights