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 .
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the independent claims recites steps that receiving a request from a user and generating an answer to the request using inputs related to user experience associated with a tenant. All of the recited steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the limitations under the organized human activity with paper and pen.
The claim features under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. For example, but for the “operating” [human behavior: using, utilizing], “receiving” [human behavior: obtaining, acquiring], and “generating” [human activity: causing, creating], in the context of this claim encompasses methods of organized human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "system/method of organized human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
"[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, 'we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?"' MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. "What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm." SAP Inc. v. lnvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hutu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites "significantly more" than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.0S{d). "If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element {or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility." Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that "[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination." Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. "As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo [] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo]." Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, "[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two." West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that "generic computer components such as an 'interface,' 'network,' and 'database' ... do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement"; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end- users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any "additional elements" in the claims that constitute "inventive concept," thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those "additional features" must be more than "well understood, routine, conventional activity." See Alice. To note, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered ... abstract idea [] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that "inventive concept" can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant's originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.") (emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims 'so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.')"). Furthermore, "[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
“a method comprising steps of”,
“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable code stored thereon for programming one or more processors to perform steps of”
“a cloud-based system comprising”
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The Berkhiemer memo clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III the memo. As seen in paragraphs ([28, 99, 104, 111]) of the instant Specification and Symantec.. 838 F.3d at 1.321, 110 USPQ2d at. 1362, the elements are viewed to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
In sum, the Examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two." In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. lnvestPic, "[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter." Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, "the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm." Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Next, it is determined whether the claim integrates the judicial expectation into a practical application by identifying whether “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether the integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
In this case, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial application into a practical application. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field ; (ii) a "particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception are an artificial intelligence agent, memory, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable code stored thereon for programming one or more processors, a cloud-based system. Lacking detail in the claims as to the form of the artificial intelligence (e.g., layers, nodes, etc. and what they do). Using a computing device and module to identify and determine a value and disposition of an object is merely applying the judicial exception using a generic computing component. Additionally, the claim identifies and determines a value and disposition of an object - the claim does not improve the functioning of the computing device, or other technology or field.
The claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that were not well understood, routine, and conventional. As set forth in the Specification, the disclosed subject matter can be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include further recited limitations, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the additional elements taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept, In other words, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neervannan et al. (2025/0061141) in view of Sheikh et al. (2023/0368284).
As to claim 1, Neervannan teaches a method comprising steps of:
operating an Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent system (abstract – AI powered document/AI models) that includes an agent core (abstract – artificial intelligent agents; [0046-0051] – workflow agent) connected to memory ([0073] – memory/storage), one or more tools ([0006] - (2) summaries generated using one or more artificial-intelligence models; (3) a freeform, interactive conversational or chat-based user interface powered by one or more artificial-intelligence models for interacting with the document search and the summaries; (4) a private single-tenant enterprise cloud for generating summaries based on proprietary information without leaving the enterprise network; and (5) artificial-intelligence agents for automatically simplifying and performing workflows to surface actionable), and a planner ([0230] - Event generators are used to initiate the jobs and to report completion of those jobs. For those that are scheduled to be daily/weekly);
receiving a request from a user ([0199] - a browser extension that allows users to request generation of summaries directly from their web browser, [0180] - document search are then provided as input into an AI model (e.g., a proprietary LLM) that is used to generate summaries based on the document search results); and
generating, via the AI agent, an answer to the request ([0186] - effectively answer user questions); (2) summaries generated using one or more artificial-intelligence models; (3) a freeform, interactive conversational or chat-based user interface powered by one or more artificial-intelligence models for interacting with the document search and the summaries; (4) a private single-tenant enterprise cloud for generating summaries ([0006]).
Neervannan does not explicitly discuss a request relating to troubleshooting a network issue; utilizing the planner to break the request down into a plurality of sub-parts that are each individually simpler than the request; generating answer to the request based on the plurality of sub-parts and using a plurality of inputs related to user experience of one or more users wherein the plurality of inputs includes telemetry data collected inline by the cloud-based system for the one or more users.
However, Neervannan teaches providing a daily summary (or a summary on another time frame) that is generated based on a user's preferences, recommendations, and/or predicted actions. As the user interacts with the system, the system is configured to learn about the types of information the user is interested in, and when the user is interested in that information ([0213]); the summarization component summarizes the documents found as a result of a user search or in response to a user prompt or question ([0215]); the chatbot interface accepts a user query or prompt for the chat at input box… the chatbot interface may include one or more suggested queries or prompts based on the user's preferences, historical context, or real-time context determined as relevant based on received documents and/or search results ([0277]); (2) summaries generated using one or more artificial-intelligence models; (3) a freeform, interactive conversational or chat-based user interface powered by one or more artificial-intelligence models for interacting with the document search and the summaries; (4) a private single-tenant enterprise cloud for generating summaries ([0006]). Hence, it would have been obvious that Neervannan suggests generating answer to the request using a plurality of inputs includes data collected by the enterprise cloud related to user reference, interest, recommendation of one or more users.
Sheikh teaches receiving a request from a user ([0061-0066] – a service request can be received from the digital representation of the user that refers to a computer-generated representation of the user. For example, a user’s digital representation engaging in a virtual meeting and making a request for a representation to be shared. The service request may include metadata that is additional information accompanying the request and is utilized by the LLM to provide relevant inferences or responses) relating to troubleshooting a network issue ([0056] - the plurality of problem domains may include, but is not limited to, energy, finance, supply chain, governance, manufacturing, mobility, smart cities, and internet of things (IoT) applications (any of these problem domains could be related to network issue); [0059] - collectively fulfilling a plurality of AA-based functionalities belonging to the plurality of problem domains. The term “autonomous agents (AA)-based functionalities” as used herein refers to one or more functionalities of the autonomous agents (AAs), that enable the autonomous agents (AAs) to serve the service request. Such functionalities may be, enabling digital payments, generating product recommendations, resolving customer queries, and the like); utilizing the planner to break the request down into a plurality of sub-parts that are each individually simpler than the request ([0066] – in task refinement the machine learning model agent (ML-Model AA) such as the LLM may be used to break down a given task into its subtasks or may provide alternatives or variants of doing the given task); generating answer to the request based on the plurality of sub-parts ([0066-0067] – a service request is received from the AI model based on the LLM to generate natural language responses or carry out tasks. The term “objective” refers to a desired outcome or goal that the client-agent device aims to achieve based on the service request received. A task is broken down into subtasks to generate the best outcome for the service request).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of generating answer to the request using a plurality of inputs related to user experience, reference, interest, recommendation of one or more users and the teachings of Sheikh into the teachings of Neervannan for the purpose of providing user with the most accurate and closest answer to the request, and implementing autonomous agents to receive a service request from a user that addressing the process of using LLMs in generating responses/outcomes based on the inputs of users.
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, Neervannan teaches the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the cloud-based system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of inputs includes telemetry data sources, user interface (UI) states/interactions, historic conversations, and domain-specific knowledge ([0277] - the chatbot interface accepts a user query or prompt for the chat at input box… the chatbot interface may include one or more suggested queries or prompts based on the user's preferences, historical context, or real-time context determined as relevant based on received documents and/or search results; [0275] - FIG. 31 depicts an example of an interactive chat-based user interface with citations and document sources according to the subject matter disclosed herein. As shown in FIG. 31, when the user selects a summary, such as summary 2914, from the chat-based user interface shown in FIG. 30, the user interface returns to the multi-pane display that shows the chat pane 3110, the citation pane 3112 showing some relevant snippets from the citation documents, and the selected document with the snippet from summary 2914 highlighted in the overview pane 3114).
As to claims 7 and 14, Neervannan teaches the method of claim 1 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 wherein generating the answer includes generating one or more interactive data visualizations based on the request ([0275] - in FIG. 31, when the user selects a summary, such as summary 2914, from the chat-based user interface shown in FIG. 30, the user interface returns to the multi-pane display that shows the chat pane 3110, the citation pane 3112 showing some relevant snippets from the citation documents, and the selected document with the snippet from summary 2914 highlighted in the overview pane 3114; [0278] - the sentence(s) from which the answer was generated are highlighted or otherwise displayed differently in the displayed source document, as shown in FIG. 33C; [0279] - Referring to FIG. 33C, the first response in responses section 3304 has been selected by the user, and the system displays a user interface that shows the source document. The portions of the source document that the response was generated from is highlighted. Additionally, in one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 33C, snippets of text from the source document that are determined to be relevant or responsive to the user prompt are displayed and highlighted for case of review).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Neervannan teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer readable code stored for programming one or more processors, memory storing computer executable instructions ([0315-0316, 0319, 0326]).
4. Claims 3-4, 10-11, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neervannan et al. (2025/0061141) and Sheikh et al. (2023/0368284) in view of Allen et al. (2016/0180216).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, Neervannan and Sheikh do not explicitly discuss the method of claim 1, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, and the cloud-based system of claim 15, wherein the steps further comprise: prior to receiving the request, receiving an expertise level of the user and generating the answer to the request based on the expertise level of the user.
Allen teaches determining the expertise level of a user with a topic of a question presented by the user to a data processing system. The data processing system generates an answer to the question that is based on the expertise level of the user with the topic (abstract; [0006]; claims 9 and 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Allen into the teachings of Neervannan and Sheikh for the purpose of improving techniques for answering user questions based on user expertise level.
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, Neervannan teaches the method of claim 3, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, and the cloud-based system of claim 17, wherein FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a search results user interface of the deep search system, where the viewing interface allows the user to compare documents side by side ([0015]); search are provided as input into an AI model ([0180]) and each answer is selected by the user, which causes the system to display a user interface that shows the source document so that the user can verify the source of the answer as well as learn additional context ([0278]); and Allen teaches responding to user input includes determining an expertise level of a user with a topic of a question presented by the user to a data processing system (abstract; [0006]; claims 9 and 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Allen into the teachings of Neervannan for the purpose of providing a UI for the user to input the expertise level to capture user expertise level that can significantly improve usability, engagement, and satisfaction.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that “The Claims Do Not Recite an Abstract Idea.” and utilizing a planner to break a request into a plurality of sub-parts that are each individually simpler than request, and generating an answer based on those sub-parts using telemetry collected inline by the cloud-based system. Examiner respectfully submits that a human can break a request into a plurality of small request and generating an answer based on those small requests using data collected by the system. The claim does not limit that breaking a request and generating answer based on those small request cannot be done by a human.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and recit significantly more. Examiner respectfully submits that the claim recites no details about a particular artificial intelligence agent system. The artificial intelligence agent system is used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation recited in step (b)) without placing any limitation on how the artificial intelligence agent system operates. In addition, the limitation would cover every mode of implementing the recited abstract idea using artificial intelligence agent system. The claim omits any details as to how the artificial intelligence agent system solves a technical problem and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited in step (b), which is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” to the recited judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are objected because they depend on object claims 5, 12, and 19, respectively.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights