DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on October 03, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 13, 2026 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on October 03, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
(a) Paragraph [0003], second sentence, recites that the framework “monitors and dormant within the existing application until activated remotely by cloud signals”. The clause is grammatically incomplete; a verb appears to have been omitted before “dormant”. Correction such as “monitors and remains dormant” is suggested.
(b) Paragraph [0003], last sentence, recites that “the framework can trigger a secure (e.g., “hidden” in that only the framework has read/write access, for example), thereby initiating the intelligent upgrade process discussed herein”. The noun modified by the adjective “secure” has been omitted, and it is therefore not possible to determine what is triggered. Correction is required.
(c) Paragraph [0003], third sentence, recites “Such approach ensures”. The article appears to have been omitted; “Such an approach ensures” is suggested.
(d) Paragraph [0045] recites “such as, but not limiting to”. The intended phrase appears to be “but not limited to”.
(e) Paragraph [0045] recites “a cloud computing/architecture 120”. Reference character 120 appears only in this sentence, and is inconsistent with the 600-series reference characters used for the remaining elements of the same figures recited in the same sentence, namely 604, 606, 608, and 610. Clarification is required as to whether reference character 120 is correct.
(f) Paragraph [0046] ends without terminal punctuation, at “and/or any other type of secure data repository”. A period should be added.
(g) Paragraph [0059] recites “Step 308 can be performed by determination module 204”. Reference character 204 designates the analysis module in paragraphs [0050] and [0059], and the determination module is designated 206 in paragraphs [0050] and [0082]. The reference character in paragraph [0059] appears to be in error and should read 206.
(h) Paragraph [0063] recites that engine 200 can “analyze the collected user data from Step 306”. Step 306 is itself the analyzing step; the user data is collected at Step 304. The step reference appears to be in error and should read Step 304.
(i) Paragraph [0068] recites “so as to determine, derive, extract or otherwise activities/non-activities in/around usage of an application/device”. A verb appears to have been omitted after “otherwise”. Correction is required.
(j) Paragraph [0074] recites that the data structure “can be configured with header (or metadata)”. The article appears to have been omitted before “header”. (k) Paragraph [0079] recites that engine 200 interacts with users “via the App AI chatbot service”. No “App AI chatbot service” is defined anywhere in the disclosure. Paragraphs [0054] through [0058] define an AI context service, an AI classification service, an AI chatbot service, an orchestrator service, and an app reporter service. The term is inconsistent with the remainder of the disclosure and lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
(l) Paragraph [0090] recites “IN another example”. The capitalization is in error and should read “In another example”.
(m) Paragraph [0093] recites that the model “can further response attempting to persuade the user”. The intended word appears to be “respond” rather than “response”.
(n) Paragraph [0098] recites “This can involve compiling the executable instructions for the application upgrade/install being compiled into an electronic message”. The sentence recites the act of compiling twice and is grammatically incorrect. Correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. The informalities identified in subparagraphs (b) through (h) below concern terms introduced with the definite article “the” where the corresponding term was previously introduced only in a different grammatical form. Although the Examiner does not consider these informalities to render the claims indefinite, correction is nonetheless required for clarity and consistency. (a) Claims 8 and 16 each recite “the upgrade instance being provided by a Cloud”. The term “Cloud” is capitalized mid-claim without apparent reason and is not capitalized in the corresponding portions of the specification. Amendment to “a cloud” is suggested. (b) Claims 1, 9, and 17 each recite “determining, based on the analysis”. The claims previously recite the act of “analyzing activity,” not “an analysis.” The term “the analysis” therefore lacks express antecedent basis. (c) Claims 3, 11, and 19 each recite “the analysis of the feedback”. The claims previously recite “analyzing the feedback,” not “an analysis of the feedback.” The term lacks express antecedent basis. (d) Claims 4, 12, and 20 each recite “the analysis of the information related to the upgrade instance”. Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite “analyzing information related to the upgrade instance,” not “an analysis.” The term lacks express antecedent basis. (e) Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 each recite “the activity related to the execution of the application”. Claims 1 and 9 recite “analyzing activity related to execution of the application,” without the definite article before “execution.” The term “the execution” lacks express antecedent basis. (f) Claims 5 and 13 each recite “the activity related to the usage of the features by the user”. No usage of the features has been previously recited. The term “the usage” lacks express antecedent basis. (g) Claims 6 and 14 each recite “a point of failure related to the usage of the application by the user”. No usage of the application has been previously recited. The term “the usage” lacks express antecedent basis. (h) Claims 7 and 15 each recite “performing the analysis of the activity related to execution of the application”. Claims 1 and 9 recite the act of analyzing, not “an analysis.” The term lacks express antecedent basis. (i) Claims 10 and 11 recite additional functionality using the format “wherein the processor is further configured to”, whereas claims 12, 13, 14, and 16 recite additional functionality using the format “further comprising”. The inconsistent format within the same statutory group is objected to. See also subparagraph (j) below and the rejection of claims 12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below.
(j) Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 18–20 are objected to because the transitional phrase “further comprising” is used to introduce subject matter that is neither an element nor a step. Claim 5, for example, recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising the activity related to the execution of the application corresponding to features of the application”, which further characterizes the activity already recited in claim 1 rather than adding a step to the method. Claims 18–20 recite “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, further comprising: analyzing information related to the upgrade instance” and similar, where the recited acts are carried out by the device that executes the encoded instructions, as claim 17 provides, rather than by the medium. The Examiner does not consider any of these claims to be indefinite on this basis, because the scope of each is reasonably ascertainable from its parent claim, but amendment to a conventional form is suggested, for example “wherein the activity … corresponds to …” for claims 5, 6, 13, and 14, and “wherein the instructions, when executed, further perform: …” for claims 18–20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(a) Claims 1–20 each recite “an upgrade instance”. The term is indefinite because the claims themselves employ it in two irreconcilable senses and the specification supplies no definition of it. Claim 1 recites “performing the upgrade instance”, which requires the upgrade instance to be an act or operation capable of being carried out. Claims 8 and 16 recite “the upgrade instance being provided by a Cloud”, which requires the upgrade instance to be a thing capable of being supplied from a source. An operation cannot be provided by a cloud, and a thing cannot be performed. The specification does not resolve the conflict: paragraph [0087] uses the term in connection with determining whether an upgrade of the application for the user “is required”; paragraph [0088] describes that same determination as involving whether “an application version” exists that is not currently installed on the user’s device; and paragraph [0098] refers to the corresponding act as “the upgrade operation in Step 414”. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not be apprised of whether the claimed upgrade instance is a decision, a software artifact, or a process. Clarification is required. (b) Claims 2, 10, and 18 each recite “compiling a prompt for the chatbot” followed by “outputting, via the UI, the prompt”. The phrase “a prompt for the chatbot” denotes, on its face, a prompt that is supplied as input to the chatbot. The immediately following limitation, however, requires that the same prompt be output to the user through the user interface, and claims 3, 11, and 19 require that the user provide feedback “in response to the prompt”, which requires instead that the prompt be directed from the chatbot to the user. The specification at paragraphs [0090] and [0091] describes only the latter. It is therefore unclear whether the recited prompt is an input to the chatbot or an output of the chatbot, and the two readings yield materially different claim scope. Clarification is required. (c) Claims 6 and 14 each recite “the activity related to the execution of the application corresponding to a point of failure related to the usage of the application by the user, the point of failure related to non-used features or abandonment of use of the application by the user”. The limitation is indefinite for at least three reasons. First, the specification supplies no definition of “point of failure”, and the term as ordinarily understood in the software arts denotes a component, step, or condition whose malfunction causes a system or process to fail. The claim instead associates the term with the mere non-use of a feature or the discontinuation of use by a user, neither of which is a malfunction, and does not identify what condition constitutes the point of failure. Second, the limitation employs the open-ended connector “related to” three times in succession, so that the claimed activity need only be related to something related to something related to non-use; the degree of relation required is not ascertainable. Third, it is unclear whether “non-used features” refers to features never used by the particular user, features not used within some unspecified period, or features not present in the installed version of the application. Clarification is required. (d) Claims 12 and 16 are rejected as indefinite because it cannot be determined whether the recited subject matter is an element of the claimed device. Claim 12 recites “The device of claim 10, further comprising the analysis of the information related to the upgrade instance being performed by a large language model (LLM) associated with the chatbot”, and claim 16 recites “The device of claim 9, further comprising the upgrade instance being provided by a Cloud”. Each claim employs the transitional term “comprising” with respect to the device, so that the large language model of claim 12 and the cloud of claim 16 are each presented as something the device comprises. Claim 9, however, recites the device as comprising a processor, and neither the large language model nor the cloud is recited as any part of that processor or as otherwise connected to it. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed device must itself include the large language model and the cloud, or whether those elements are external to the device and merely cooperate with it. The two readings yield materially different claim scope. Claims 13 and 14 employ the same transitional phrasing but introduce no additional entity, further characterizing only the activity already recited in claim 9; those claims are accordingly not rejected on this basis and are instead addressed by the objection at paragraph 5(j) above. Clarification is required Claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as depending from a rejected base claim and thereby incorporating the indefiniteness identified above.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of applying the prior art, and pursuant to MPEP § 2173.06(II), the following constructions have been adopted.
(a) The “device” of claim 9 and the “device” of claim 17 are each construed as distinct from the recited “user device”, in accordance with the presumption that different terms appearing in a claim denote different elements. The claimed device is therefore not required to be the user device on which the application is installed.
(b) “An upgrade instance” is construed, as the term is best understood, as an upgrade of the identified application that is determined for, and applied to, the user device.
(c) “A prompt for the chatbot” in claims 2, 10, and 18 is construed, consistent with the specification at paragraphs [0090] and [0091] and with the recitation in claims 3, 11, and 19 that the user provides feedback in response to the prompt, as a prompt generated for presentation by the chatbot to the user. The prior art applied below additionally addresses the alternative construction, under which the prompt is an input supplied to the chatbot.
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.
Applicant is advised that this rejection is independent of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth below, and is applied to every claim that recites an abstract idea, including any claim that may be indicated as containing allowable subject matter over the prior art of record. Amendment of a rejected claim to incorporate the limitations of another claim would not, without more, overcome this rejection.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Question: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Answer: Claims 1–8 recite a series of acts and are therefore directed to a process. Claims 9–16 recite a device comprising a processor and are therefore directed to a machine. Claims 17–20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and are therefore directed to an article of manufacture.
Therefore Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four statutory categories, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong 1 — Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Question: Do the claims recite an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 is taken as representative. Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
(a) identifying an application installed on a user device;
(b) analyzing activity related to execution of the application by a user;
(c) determining, based on the analysis, an upgrade instance, the upgrade instance corresponding to the activity of the user;
(d) communicating with the user, the communication corresponding to the upgrade instance; and
(e) performing the upgrade instance based on the communication with the user.
Limitations (a), (b), and (c), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite acts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. A person observing another person’s telephone can note which application is installed upon it, which is limitation (a). That person can then watch how the other person uses the application, noting on a sheet of paper which functions are used, how often, and where the other person stops, which is limitation (b). Having recorded those observations, the person can compare them against a written list of what a newer version of the application offers and form the judgment that the newer version would suit the observed usage, writing that conclusion down, which is limitation (c). Nothing in limitations (a) through (c) requires anything beyond observation, evaluation, and judgment. These limitations therefore recite a mental process, one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Limitation (d), when the recited user interface of a chatbot is set aside for consideration as an additional element in Prong 2, recites nothing more than communicating with the user about the determined upgrade. Conveying a recommendation to another person is itself an act of human interaction and falls within the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The same limitation, considered as the formulation and conveyance of an evaluation, additionally recites a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The mere recitation that these acts are carried out on a user device, or through the interface of a chatbot, does not remove them from the mental process or organizing human activity groupings. A claim that recites a judicial exception performed on a generic computer still recites that judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Therefore Yes, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2A, Prong 2 — Integration into a Practical Application
Question: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Beyond the abstract idea identified above, claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
(1) a user device;
(2) a user interface (UI) of a chatbot; and
(3) the act of performing the upgrade instance.
Additional element (1), the user device, is recited at a high level of generality and serves only as the environment in which the application resides and the abstract idea is carried out. The specification confirms that no particular device is required, describing the user device as any of a mobile phone, tablet, laptop, sensor, Internet of Things device, wearable device, or autonomous machine at paragraph [0038], and describing a generic client device at paragraphs [0103] through [0112]. This element amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Additional element (2), the user interface of a chatbot, is likewise recited at a high level of generality and functions only to convey the result of the abstract determination to the user and to receive the user’s response. Using a generic interface to output and receive data is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(g), and reciting that the abstract idea is carried out through such an interface is mere instructions to apply, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). The specification does not describe any improvement to the chatbot itself; to the contrary, paragraphs [0009] through [0011] describe chatbots generically, as software applications designed to simulate human conversation that are typically integrated into websites, messaging apps, and mobile apps.
Additional element (3), performing the upgrade instance, is recited without any detail whatsoever as to how the upgrade is effected. The claim states the desired outcome and leaves the means of achieving it entirely unspecified. Reciting the result to be achieved, without reciting how it is achieved, is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f), and additionally serves only to generally link the abstract idea to the technological environment of software distribution, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, see MPEP § 2106.05(a); do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, see MPEP § 2106.05(b); do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and do not apply the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment, see MPEP § 2106.05(e). The asserted benefits described in the specification at paragraphs [0007] and [0008], namely that users are more likely to choose to upgrade and that fewer legacy versions must be maintained, are improvements to the outcome of the abstract idea and to business efficiency, not improvements to computer technology.
Therefore No, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
Question: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements identified above are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure. With respect to the user device, paragraphs [0034] through [0036] describe conventional client devices, and paragraphs [0103] through [0112] describe a conventional client device having a processor, bus, memory, display, keypad, and network interface. With respect to the chatbot and its user interface, paragraph [0009] describes chatbots as software applications typically integrated into websites, messaging apps, mobile apps, and other digital platforms, and paragraph [0010] describes the user interface as the medium through which users interact with the chatbot, such as a chat window or a voice interface. With respect to any model used to carry out the analysis, paragraphs [0064] and [0067] state that any type of known or to be known artificial intelligence or machine learning model may be used, and paragraph [0029] describes conventional computer readable storage media.
Taken individually, each additional element performs only its ordinary and expected function: the user device stores and executes the application, the user interface outputs and receives data, and the upgrade is performed. Taken as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when they are considered separately; the claim simply instructs a practitioner to carry out the abstract idea on a generic device and to report the result through a generic conversational interface. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore No, the claims do not recite additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion of the Analysis
Having concluded analysis under all steps of the eligibility inquiry, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, differing only in that the limitations are recited as functions of a processor of a device. The processor is an additional element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.
Independent claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, differing only in that the limitations are recited as instructions encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The storage medium is an additional element recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims have been analyzed and do not remedy the deficiencies identified above.
Claim 2 (and similar for claims 10 and 18) adds the limitation that information related to the upgrade instance is analyzed and that a prompt is compiled and output through the user interface. Analyzing information and formulating the wording of a prompt are acts of evaluation and judgment that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and therefore further recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Outputting the compiled prompt through the user interface is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data output. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 3 (and similar for claims 11 and 19) adds the limitation that feedback is received from the user in response to the prompt, that the feedback is analyzed, and that a determination is made whether to perform the upgrade instance. Receiving the feedback is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Analyzing the feedback and determining whether to proceed are acts of evaluation and judgment and therefore further recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 4 (and similar for claims 12 and 20) adds the limitation that the analysis is performed by a large language model associated with the chatbot. The large language model is recited solely as a tool by which the abstract analysis is carried out, without any recitation of its architecture, training, or operation, and the specification at paragraphs [0065] and [0066] describes large language models generically. This limitation therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 5 (and similar for claim 13) adds the limitation that the activity corresponds to features of the application and to the usage of those features by the user. This limitation narrows the subject matter of the observation and evaluation already recited in claim 1 and therefore further recites the same mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). No additional element is recited.
Claim 6 (and similar for claim 14) adds the limitation that the activity corresponds to a point of failure related to non-used features or abandonment of use of the application by the user. This limitation likewise narrows the subject matter of the observation and evaluation already recited in claim 1 and therefore further recites the same mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). No additional element is recited.
Claim 7 (and similar for claim 15) adds the limitation that information associated with the user, the application, and the user device is analyzed, that a pattern of activity is determined, and that the analysis is performed based further on that pattern. Analyzing information and recognizing a pattern within it are acts of observation, evaluation, and judgment that a person could perform mentally or with pen and paper, and therefore further recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 8 (and similar for claim 16) adds the limitation that the upgrade instance is provided by a cloud. The cloud is recited at a high level of generality as the source from which the upgrade originates and serves only to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The specification at paragraph [0042] describes the cloud system generically, as any type of cloud operating platform or network based system.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0227787, hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of Bates-Maricle (US Pub. No. 2024/0289113, hereinafter “Bates-Maricle”). With respect to claim 1, Kumar teaches a method comprising:
identifying an application installed on a user device (Kumar discloses that the system receives a message including information related to issues associated with a software application installed on a user device, and that a processor thereafter identifies a user context associated with that user device (paragraph [0003]). Kumar’s context analyzer 240 determines a user context associated with one or more software applications installed on user device 110 (paragraph [0020]). Kumar further discloses that a user installs a vendor-developed software application ABC on user device 110 (paragraph [0040]) and is using a version XYZ of that application on user device 110 (paragraph [0035]).
analyzing activity related to execution of the application by a user (Kumar discloses that a server analyzes user context information that includes usage information (e.g., application preferences, installed features, usage rate, etc.) (paragraph [0009]). Kumar further discloses deriving a list of defects that can impact the user’s environment based on the product features used, the workload pattern, changing product usage (paragraph [0010]), and identifying defects that result from the workload patterns and changing product usage associated with the user environment (paragraph [0041]). The usage rate, the features used, and the workload pattern of the application on the user device are activity related to execution of the application by the user.
determining, based on the analysis, an upgrade instance, the upgrade instance corresponding to the activity of the user (Kumar discloses that server 130 analyzes the user context information associated with user device 110 and evaluates the received software update information to generate a recommendation for one or more software updates and forward the recommendation to user device 110 to present on display to the user (paragraph [0014]). Kumar further discloses analyzing the software update information to generate a list of recommended software updates based on the user context information (paragraph [0009]), and analyzing user context information using machine learning techniques to determine whether one or more software updates and/or patches should be installed on the user device (paragraph [0015]). Kumar’s recommendation engine 250 determines whether an update should be installed based on the user context information and generates a recommendation message identifying the update (paragraph [0021]), and Kumar recommends one or more upgrades to fix the issue the user encountered (paragraph [0037]). Because the update so determined is selected on the basis of the user context, which comprises the usage information mapped above, the determined update corresponds to the activity of the user.
performing the upgrade instance based on the communication with the user [[via the chatbot]] (Kumar discloses that The system provides this information to the user along with a recommended download link for the fixed release of products, after which The user or system may take appropriate action (paragraph [0036]), and that the system recommends the upgrades and provides links to enable downloading (manually or automatically) and installation of the one or more upgrades (paragraph [0037]). Kumar further discloses that the user submits a request in response to what was presented, and that In response to receiving the request from the user, a customized solution including one or more software upgrades is manually or automatically deployed on the user environment (paragraph [0046]), the user’s submission being what generates a customized package for manual or automatic installation (paragraph [0049]). The upgrade is therefore performed following, and on the basis of, the communication of the recommendation to the user and the user’s response to it.
Kumar is silent to disclose communicating, via a user interface (UI) of a chatbot, with the user, the communication corresponding to the upgrade instance; however, in an analogous art, Bates-Maricle teaches this limitation.
Bates-Maricle teaches communicating, via a user interface (UI) of a chatbot, with the user, the communication corresponding to the upgrade instance (Bates-Maricle discloses that graphical user interface 300 may allow a user to interact with the central server 104, which may include receiving outputs from the central server 104 or sending inputs to the central server 104 (paragraph [0105]), so that the interface carries communication in both directions. Bates-Maricle further discloses that a central server executes a machine learning chatbot to generate an update indication that indicates a potential update, and transmits that update indication to a workstation for display to a user (paragraph [0073]). The update indication is presented to the user in graphical user interface 300, which includes an update data hub 318 and an update indication hub 320 (paragraph [0106]). Those hubs present the chatbot’s statements to the user in natural language, informing the user that the update data represents a likely update to critical software and predicting when it will be available (paragraph [0110]), and advising the user that the software update should be applied as soon as possible and recommending when to apply it (paragraph [0111]). Each such communication corresponds to the update that the chatbot determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kumar so that the recommendation of the determined update is communicated to the user through the user interface of a machine learning chatbot, as taught by Bates-Maricle. Bates-Maricle is analogous art because it is directed to the same field of endeavor as Kumar and as the claimed invention, namely the automated determination of software updates and the delivery of those updates to the party that will apply them. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Bates-Maricle teaches that conventional update practices require operators to manually recognize and initiate updates, which wastes significant computing and operator resources and prolongs downtime as a result of delayed and unapplied updates (Bates-Maricle, paragraph [0004]), and that delivering update information through an interactive chat machine learning model instead provides accurate and efficient update monitoring and implementation information that mitigates those negative impacts (Bates-Maricle, paragraph [0005]). Kumar already generates a recommendation message identifying the update that should be installed and forwards that message to the user device for display to the user (Kumar, paragraph [0021]); delivering that same recommendation through the chatbot user interface of Bates-Maricle is the use of a known technique to improve a comparable system in the same way, and would have yielded no more than the predictable result of conveying the same update recommendation to the same user through a conversational interface.
The recipient of the communication in the combination remains Kumar’s user, that is, the user associated with user device 110 to whom Kumar already forwards the recommendation message for display (Kumar, paragraph [0021]); only the interface through which that recommendation is delivered is drawn from Bates-Maricle. Bates-Maricle is not limited to network operators in any event, disclosing that the component to which a determined update pertains may be a mobile device, computing device, wearable (Bates-Maricle, paragraph [0025]), and that the disclosed methods may be implemented via mobile devices, wearables, smart watches and chat bots (Bates-Maricle, paragraph [0008]). Further, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the rejection is predicated upon a combination of references, and the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(III). With respect to claim 2, Kumar is silent to disclose analyzing information related to the upgrade instance, compiling a prompt for the chatbot, and outputting the prompt via the UI; however, in an analogous art, Bates-Maricle teaches these limitations.
Bates-Maricle teaches analyzing information related to the upgrade instance (Bates-Maricle discloses that the central server pre-processes the update data to generate formatted update data for input to the machine learning chatbot (paragraph [0050]), and that update template data causes the processor to identify and extract device (e.g., subsystem/component) identification information, update information, timestamp information from the update data (paragraph [0051]).
compiling a prompt for the chatbot (Bates-Maricle discloses that the central server may execute the machine learning chatbot to generate an update indication that indicates a potential update (paragraph [0073]), that the update indication so generated may also be or include an indication of a particular action or series of actions that a user/operator may take to ensure that the update is applied successfully (paragraph [0088]), and that as part of generating it the chatbot may output a completed and/or otherwise partially completed update template along with and/or as part of the update indication (paragraph [0089]). The update indication so compiled is the prompt to which the user responds, as set forth for claim 3 below. Consistent with paragraph 7(B) above, the Examiner notes that under the alternative construction, in which the recited prompt is an input supplied to the chatbot rather than an output presented by it, Bates-Maricle likewise discloses formatting the extracted update information into a natural language prompt for input to the machine learning chatbot (paragraph [0051]).
outputting, via the UI, the prompt (Bates-Maricle discloses that the central server may then transmit the update indication to the workstation 110 for display to a user/operator (paragraph [0073]), and that the update indication so generated is presented in the update data hub 318 and the update indication hub 320 of graphical user interface 300 (paragraph [0106]), which set out for the user what the update is and what the user should do about it (paragraphs [0110], [0111]). The object generated at paragraph [0073] and the object displayed at paragraphs [0106] and [0110]–[0111] are one and the same update indication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumar and Bates-Maricle so that the information concerning the determined update is extracted and formatted into a natural language prompt that is presented to the user through the chatbot user interface, as taught by Bates-Maricle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Bates-Maricle teaches that formatting the extracted information in this manner causes the resulting output to adhere to a standardized input format that improves the resulting output by accentuating the relevant words and phrases in the update data (Bates-Maricle, paragraph [0050]), and because the resulting natural language statements guide the user to an optimal update application methodology (Bates-Maricle, paragraph [0111]). Applying this known formatting and presentation technique to the update recommendation already generated by Kumar would have yielded the predictable result of a more intelligible and more actionable update recommendation. With respect to claim 3, Kumar teaches determining, based on the analysis of the feedback, whether to perform the upgrade instance (Kumar discloses that A user may select only those defects and dependent defects which are encountered in their environment, and create a customized package online that may be applied to fix the identified defects (paragraph [0011]), so that what is installed, and whether it is installed at all, follows from the selection the user returns. Kumar further discloses that the impact analysis yields a set of defects to which the user environment is prone, that A user has an option to submit this list to the product company’s site 537 to request a customized fix, and that the user’s submission generates a customized package for manual or automatic installation (paragraph [0049]). Kumar further discloses that the user sends a request for a customized solution at step 570 (paragraph [0045]), and that In response to receiving the request from the user, the customized solution comprising one or more software upgrades is manually or automatically deployed on the user environment at step 580 (paragraph [0046]). Whether the upgrade is performed, and which upgrades are included in it, is therefore determined from the response the user returns.
Kumar is silent to disclose receiving feedback from the user via the UI in response to the prompt and analyzing the feedback; however, in an analogous art, Bates-Maricle teaches these limitations.
Bates-Maricle teaches receiving feedback from the user via the UI in response to the prompt (Bates-Maricle discloses that graphical user interface 300 permits the user to send inputs to the central server 104 (paragraph [0105]), and that the central server receives user input that includes feedback from a user/operator regarding the accuracy of the predicted update(s), template(s), and/or other information provided in the update indication (paragraph [0097]), the update indication being the communication that was presented to the user through the chatbot interface, and further discloses that the user provides input indicating that the user has determined that the update is not configured for installation with particular components (paragraph [0100]).
analyzing the feedback (Bates-Maricle discloses that the machine learning chatbot utilizes the update data and the user input together to focus the determination of predicted update(s) (paragraph [0100]), and that the user input is provided to the chatbot and used to update and re-train it so as to improve subsequent update indications (paragraph [0097]). With respect to claim 5, Kumar teaches the activity related to the execution of the application corresponding to features of the application, the activity related to the usage of the features by the user (Kumar discloses that the analyzed usage information includes the installed features, usage rate of the software application (paragraph [0009]), and that the system identifies the pattern for all product features which are used and active in the user’s environment (paragraph [0010]). With respect to claim 7, Kumar teaches analyzing information associated with the user, the information corresponding to the user, the application and the user device (Kumar’s context analyzer 240 cognitively analyzes user context information associated with the user device including software installation configuration information (e.g., application, version numbers, release information, configuration parameters, etc.), user preference information (e.g., user characteristics, security preferences, etc.) and/or user device information (e.g., manufacturer, device configuration information, etc.) (paragraph [0020]), which is information corresponding respectively to the application, to the user, and to the user device.
determining a pattern of activity for the user, the pattern of activity related to usage of the application (Kumar discloses that the system identifies the pattern, using machine learning, for all product features which are used and active in the user environment (paragraph [0010]), and that machine learning models are used to associate the unique features of the user environment to software defects (paragraph [0042]).
performing the analysis of the activity related to execution of the application based further on the pattern of activity (Kumar discloses that the list of defects that can impact the user environment is derived based on the workload pattern and changing product usage (paragraph [0010]), and that the smart logic is run to make an assessment and impact analysis for defects based on the current working logic and patterns of user environments (paragraph [0047]). With respect to claim 8, Kumar teaches the upgrade instance being provided by a Cloud (Kumar discloses that server 130 is remote from user device 110, determines that the update should be installed, and installs the software update on user device 110 (paragraphs [0013], [0015]), so that server 130 is what supplies the upgrade. Kumar further discloses that If the server 130 is employed as part of a hybrid cloud, a service may automatically connect and access the package containing the defect fixes (paragraph [0047]), and that the embodiments may be applied to any desired type of computing environment (e.g., cloud computing, client-server, network computing, mainframe, stand-alone systems, etc.) (paragraph [0055]). The upgrade is therefore provided by a cloud. With respect to claim 9, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1, differing only in that the limitations are recited as A device comprising: a processor configured to perform the recited operations. Kumar teaches this difference (Kumar, paragraphs [0016]-[0017]), disclosing that server 130 includes a processor 210, a memory 220, and a network interface unit 280 (paragraph [0016]), and that processor 210 may include a collection of microcontrollers or microprocessors each configured to execute respective software instructions stored in the memory (paragraph [0017]). Claim 9 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1, differing only in that the limitations are recited as A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions that when executed by a device, perform a method comprising. Kumar teaches this difference (Kumar, paragraphs [0018], [0059], [0068]), disclosing that memory 220 comprises one or more computer readable storage media encoded with software comprising computer executable instructions and when the software is executed (e.g., by processor 210) it is operable to perform the operations described herein (paragraph [0018]), that the software of the invention may be available on a non-transitory computer useable medium of a stationary or portable program product apparatus (paragraph [0059]), and that the computer readable storage medium is a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device (paragraph [0068]). Claim 17 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 2.
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 3.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 5.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 7.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 8.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 2.
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 3.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0227787, hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of Bates-Maricle (US Pub. No. 2024/0289113, hereinafter “Bates-Maricle”) and further in view of Baeuml et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0074406, hereinafter “Baeuml”). With respect to claim 4, Kumar in view of Bates-Maricle is silent to disclose the analysis of the information related to the upgrade instance being performed by a large language model associated with the chatbot; however, in an analogous art, Baeuml teaches this limitation.
Baeuml teaches the analysis of the information related to the upgrade instance being performed by a large language model (LLM) associated with the chatbot (The information whose analysis is recited is the information related to the upgrade instance recited in claim 2 and addressed above; the limitation added by claim 4 is that this analysis is performed by a large language model associated with the chatbot, and Baeuml teaches that addition expressly. Baeuml identifies the interactive software applications it addresses as automated assistants, also referred to as “chatbots,” among other names (paragraph [0001]). Baeuml discloses that the automated assistant client 114 itself contains a large language model (LLM) engine 150A1 alongside its speech recognition, natural language understanding, and text-to-speech engines (paragraph [0041]), so that the large language model is a component of, and therefore associated with, the chatbot. Baeuml further discloses that this LLM engine can process the set of assistant outputs and the context of the dialog session, using one or more large language models, to generate the set of modified assistant outputs that the chatbot presents to the user (paragraphs [0043], [0079]); that the same processing is performed where the user provides typed or touch input rather than a spoken utterance (paragraph [0056]); and that the resulting exchange is rendered to the user on a display 680 to visually render visual output of the client device (paragraphs [0093], [0103]). The analysis by which the chatbot’s communication to the user is produced is therefore performed by a large language model associated with that chatbot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kumar and Bates-Maricle so that the analysis underlying the chatbot’s communication concerning the determined update is performed by a large language model associated with the chatbot, as taught by Baeuml. Baeuml is analogous art because it is directed to chatbots and to the generation of the statements such chatbots provide to users, which is the same field of endeavor as the chatbot communication of Bates-Maricle relied upon above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Baeuml teaches that a chatbot which does not employ a large language model responds to the user without providing any additional response in furtherance of the dialog session, so that its responses do not resonate with the user (Baeuml, paragraph [0004]), and that processing the assistant outputs and the dialog context with a large language model enables the automated assistant to engage in natural conversations with the user and to proactively provide contextual information that the user did not directly solicit (Baeuml, paragraph [0019]). Applying that known technique to the chatbot of Bates-Maricle, which already conveys update recommendations to a user in natural language and seeks the user’s response, would have yielded the predictable result of update communications that are more conversational and more likely to engage the user.
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 4.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 4.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0227787, hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of Bates-Maricle (US Pub. No. 2024/0289113, hereinafter “Bates-Maricle”) and further in view of Mowatt (US Pub. No. 2018/0203860, hereinafter “Mowatt”). With respect to claim 6, and as a preliminary matter, the limitation recites the point of failure as being related to “non-used features or abandonment of use of the application by the user.” The limitation is therefore recited in the alternative, and prior art disclosing either alternative satisfies it. See MPEP § 2131.02. The first alternative is addressed below.
Kumar teaches the activity related to the execution of the application corresponding to a point of failure related to the usage of the application by the user, [[the point of failure related to non-used features or abandonment of use of the application by the user]] (Kumar discloses that the user is using a version XYZ of the software application ABC on user device 110 at step 410 (paragraph [0035]), and that at step 420 The user encounters an issue (e.g., a bug, a warning, an exception, etc.) associated with the software application (paragraph [0036]). Kumar further discloses that the user identifies defects in that software application that result from the unique workload patterns, changing product usage, changing user base, and complexity of operations associated with the user environment (paragraph [0041]), and that the details of the encountered issue are submitted to and analyzed by the system, which returns matching defect records including resolution and fixed versions (paragraph [0036]). A bug, warning, or exception that arises while the user is executing the application is a point of failure related to the usage of the application by the user under the ordinary meaning of that term in the software arts, and the activity Kumar analyzes corresponds to it.
Kumar in view of Bates-Maricle is silent to disclose the point of failure related to non-used features or abandonment of use of the application by the user; however, in an analogous art, Mowatt teaches this limitation.
Mowatt teaches the point of failure related to non-used features or abandonment of use of the application by the user (Mowatt discloses that the features of the application are functions mapped to a set of one or more buttons or other user interface controls or logic that user may interact with within the application(s) (paragraph [0033]), and that the usage logs record how many times a particular feature has been used by particular users (e.g. employees) 134, so that the non-use is determined at the level of the individual user (paragraph [0034]). Mowatt further discloses receiving logs of past usage of the features of an application installed on a user’s computing device and, based on those logs, identifying one or more of the features that are unused or less frequently used by the target entity (paragraphs [0009], [0019]). Mowatt’s feature insight collector 124 registers negative efficiency indicators, which indicate the frequency of said features are not being used (paragraph [0052]), and detects the lack of use in said more sophisticated features and thereby creates negative efficiency indicators to flag up such underuse (paragraph [0053]). Mowatt then highlights any unused or less frequently used features so identified (paragraph [0058]), and where the user has been using the application beyond a threshold period without updating, gives greater weighting to recommending features that would be obtained from an update (thus pushing adoption of updates) (paragraph [0045]). Mowatt’s features that are unused by the user are non-used features, which satisfies the first recited alternative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Kumar and Bates-Maricle so that the analyzed activity corresponds to features of the application that the user has not used or has ceased using, as taught by Mowatt. Mowatt is analogous art because it is directed to the same field of endeavor as Kumar and as the claimed invention, namely the analysis of a user’s usage of an application installed on a computing device for the purpose of determining and promoting software updates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Mowatt teaches that users are not made aware of new features included with automated updates and are therefore unable to make full use of them, with the result that the full capacity of the software is often not utilised and companywide roll-out of newer software that would improve productivity is often postponed (Mowatt, paragraphs [0002], [0004]), and that identifying the features a given user is not using supplies the basis for a bespoke recommendation that increases utilisation and pushes adoption of updates (Mowatt, paragraphs [0010], [0045]). Kumar already analyzes which product features are used and active in the user’s environment (Kumar, paragraph [0010]); extending that analysis to identify the features that are not used, as Mowatt teaches, is the use of a known technique to improve a comparable system in the same way and would have yielded the predictable result of an update recommendation targeted to the functionality the user is failing to exploit.
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhupati et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0378396), teaches an application that identifies content and a related context, generates a prompt for a large language model service requesting an evaluation of that content, and displays a recommendation based on the model’s response in a task or chat pane of the user interface of the application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights