CTFR 18/924,117 CTFR 81992 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s response to Office action was received on March 25, 2026. In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims, as amended, do not correspond to the “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” subject matter category under 101 analysis. Examiner disagrees. The claims continue to be directed toward managing interactive communications between people. For example, see how claim 1 begins by receiving input data from a plurality of users. These users are people, or the claim at least encompasses the users being humans. The entire point of the claim is to use an AI assistant to interact with users in a discussion and facilitate such discussion. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive. Applicant next argues that Examiner has failed to analyze the claim as a whole under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B. Applicant argues that the computing components are not merely generic, due to the functions they are configured to perform, and that Examiner has over-extended the application of “mere instructions to apply an exception”. In response, 101 analysis has been clear that merely performing a judicial exception on generic computing components, without more, does not render such a judicial-exception claim to be eligible under 101 analysis. That is the situation with Applicant’s claims. The functions, that Applicant is regarding as relevant to the computing components, are part of the abstract idea; the guidance does not treat the generic computing components as becoming non-generic simply by performing an abstract idea. In addition, Examiner does not believe that “mere instructions to apply an exception” is being over-extended, when one reviews the list of computing components that are being treated as generic under that consideration in the rejections. For example, one of the computing components is “maintaining a repository”. Storing data is an extremely widely performed computing activity, for many years now. Therefore, Examiner does not find these arguments to be persuasive. On p. 11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant states that Examiner, at pp. 4-5 of the previous Office action, characterizes the computing components as insignificant extra-solution activity, but Examiner reviewed that portion of the previous Office action and did not find such characterization. Applicant next argues that Applicant’s claims are eligible via similarity to the Desjardins decision. Examiner disagrees. Desjardins was eligible as an improvement to a technological field of machine learning. Looking to Applicant’s claim 1, for example, we see a series of conceptual functions, like analyzing input data, classifying the context, and generating a creative suggestion, but we see only one mention of machine learning or AI, in the form of the AI assistant. Although the various functions can be part of what an AI performs, the claim does not explicitly get into the details of how the AI assistant works in a way that would clearly demonstrate an improvement to the field of machine learning, as in Desjardins. Therefore, Examiner does not find Desjardins to be currently applicable to Applicant’s claims, for eligibility purposes. Applicant next argues that Recentive Analytics is not applicable to Applicant’s claims, based on the specific functions performed in Applicant’s claims. Again, as discussed above with respect to representative claim 1, the claim language focuses on various functions that may be performed by the computing system, but does not get into a lot of specifics as to how the AI itself works, or as to how an AI is improved in the claim. Therefore, Examiner still does not find Desjardins to be applicable here for eligibility. Applicant next argues that the claims represent a technological or computing improvement, but relies on a significant amount of the abstract-idea limitations to make this argument. The technological/computing improvement consideration is to have meaningful contribution from the additional elements beyond the abstract idea, here the computing components. As explained elsewhere in this Office action, all of the computing components in the claims appear to be merely generic/general-purpose. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive. Applicant next argues that the claims are not to a mental process, but Examiner did not rely on the mental processes subject matter grouping, instead relying on the “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping. Therefore, this Applicant argument is not directly relevant to the specific rejection made by Examiner. Examiner does not believe that Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejections are currently relevant, in light of the amendments to the prior art rejections, below in this Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per Claim(s) 1, 8, and 17, Claim(s) 1, 8, and 17 recite(s): - receiving input data from a plurality of users; - analyzing the input data by determining a creativity context; - classifying the creativity context; - personalized creative profiles, a personalized creative profile corresponding to a user of the plurality of users; - generating a creative suggestion, wherein the generating makes the creative suggestion contextually relevant to the collaborative session using the creativity context from the input data, wherein the generating makes the creative suggestion personalized to the user by further using at least one personalized creative profile corresponding to the user, and wherein the generating comprises analyzing divergent viewpoints expressed in the input data from the plurality of users and generating the creative suggestion as a compromise solution combining one or more elements of the divergent viewpoints; - refining the creative suggestion using a relevance filtering mechanism; - collecting, from the user, user feedback relative to the creative suggestion; - updating an assistant, using the user feedback, to cause a change in the generating such that a future creative suggestion improves engagement of the user in the collaborative session. Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”: - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactive communication experience between people. To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: - computer-implemented; participating in a collaborative session; maintaining a repository; AI; a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations; a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) are not patent eligible. As per dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-16, and 18-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s). Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows: - data storage (claims 5 and 12); - real time (claims 7 and 14); - wherein the program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system (claim 15); - wherein the program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: program instructions (claim 16). The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 2 merely adds detail to the input data. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Claim(s) 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuk, US 20200287736 A1, in view of Shoemaker, US 7885902 B1, in further view of Vasylyev, US 20240412720 A1 . As per Claims 1, 8, and 17, Zhuk discloses: - a computer-implemented method (paragraph [0024] (“Some portions of the detailed descriptions that follow are presented in terms of procedures, methods, flows, logic blocks, processing, and other symbolic representations of operations performed on a computing device or a server.”)); - receiving input data from a plurality of users participating in a collaborative session (paragraph [0054] (“The method comprises receiving text data for one or more users of the collaboration environment.”); paragraph [0055] (“receiving text data for one or more users of the collaboration environment”)); - analyzing the input data by determining a creativity context (paragraph [0051] (“Traditionally, a user receives digital communication information and acts upon the content of the information.”); paragraph [0053] (“The presently described approaches seek to address these shortcomings by using machine learning (ML) to evaluate the content of the information, create an overall communication context, and determined target action items that are user-specific.”)); - classifying the creativity context (paragraph [0097] (“In an embodiment, the extraction 702 model outputs participant data 704, named entity data 706, and/or conceptual type data 708.”; “Conceptual type data 708 is data pertaining to contextual categories or types of specific discussions. For example, discussions may be related to: politics, travel, business, project discussions, scheduling events, problem descriptions such as a customer complaint, hate speech, casual welcome luncheons, or any other conceptual types. In an embodiment, the extraction 702 is done using three different AI models that are configured to extract the participant data 704, named entity data 706, and conceptual type data 708, respectively. Any number of AI models may be used to extract the relevant information.”)); - generating a creative suggestion, wherein the generating makes the creative suggestion contextually relevant to the collaborative session using the creativity context from the input data (paragraphs [0133]-[0134] (context considered); paragraph [0189] (“In an embodiment, the system 300 may access John's knowledge base on a specific topic, such as a list of frequently asked questions across all collaboration systems and chat groups. The system 300 may suggest relevant documents, text, excerpts, answers, and other retained parts of communication based on John's current activity.”)); - refining the creative suggestion using a relevance filtering mechanism (paragraph [0071] (whole paragraph)); - collecting, from the user, user feedback relative to the creative suggestion (paragraph [0071] (whole paragraph)); - updating an AI assistant, using the user feedback, to cause a change in the generating such that a future creative suggestion improves engagement of the user in the collaborative session (paragraph [0071] (whole paragraph)); - a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph [0056]); - a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations (paragraph [0056]). Zhuk fails to disclose maintaining a repository of personalized creative profiles, a personalized creative profile in the repository corresponding to a user of the plurality of users; wherein the generating makes the creative suggestion personalized to the user by further using from the repository at least one personalized creative profile corresponding to the user. Shoemaker discloses maintaining a repository of personalized creative profiles, a personalized creative profile in the repository corresponding to a user of the plurality of users (column 3, lines 56-60 (“Generally speaking, embodiments of the invention apply scientific analysis in the form of machine learning to real-world profile data from users and to feedback data from past user interactions in order to provide more satisfactory recommendations to individual users.”)); wherein the generating makes the creative suggestion personalized to the user by further using from the repository at least one personalized creative profile corresponding to the user (column 2, line 51, through column 3, line 4; column 3, lines 56-60 (“Generally speaking, embodiments of the invention apply scientific analysis in the form of machine learning to real-world profile data from users and to feedback data from past user interactions in order to provide more satisfactory recommendations to individual users.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhuk such that the invention maintains a repository of personalized creative profiles, a personalized creative profile in the repository corresponding to a user of the plurality of users; and the generating makes the creative suggestion personalized to the user by further using from the repository at least one personalized creative profile corresponding to the user, as disclosed by Shoemaker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The modified Zhuk fails to disclose wherein the generating comprises analyzing divergent viewpoints expressed in the input data from the plurality of users and generating the creative suggestion as a compromise solution combining one or more elements of the divergent viewpoints. Vasylyev discloses wherein the generating comprises analyzing divergent viewpoints expressed in the input data from the plurality of users and generating the creative suggestion as a compromise solution combining one or more elements of the divergent viewpoints (paragraph [0443] (“Assistant system 2 may be further trained to support collaborative decision making among a group of users where the system summarizes different viewpoints expressed during a discussion, suggests compromises, or helps to organize voting or consensus-building exercises. Assistant system 2 may also be configured to make proactive suggestions to the meeting participants based on the current context of the conversation and real-time processing, for example, suggesting related data, files, images, documents, or even strategy points based on the ongoing discussion.”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Zhuk such that the generating comprises analyzing divergent viewpoints expressed in the input data from the plurality of users and generating the creative suggestion as a compromise solution combining one or more elements of the divergent viewpoints, as disclosed by Vasylyev, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claims 2, 9, and 18, Zhuk further discloses wherein the input data comprises at least one of a user preference of the user, a historical creative work of the user, and contextual information related to the collaborative session (paragraph [0160]). As per Claims 3, 10, and 19, Zhuk further discloses wherein the creativity context is based on a conversation history in the collaborative session (paragraph [0051]; paragraphs [0053]-[0055]). As per Claims 4, 11, and 20, the modified Zhuk fails to disclose wherein the personalized creative profile of the user comprises at least one of data describing a feedback history of the user. Shoemaker further discloses wherein the personalized creative profile of the user comprises at least one of data describing a feedback history of the user (column 3, line 56, through column 4, line 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Zhuk such that the personalized creative profile of the user comprises at least one of data describing a feedback history of the user, as disclosed by Shoemaker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. As per Claims 5 and 12, Zhuk further discloses wherein the relevance filtering mechanism further comprises: cross-referencing current session context with a stored user preference of the user (paragraphs [0141]-[0142]; paragraphs [0144]-[0145]). As per Claims 6 and 13, Zhuk further discloses wherein collecting the user feedback further comprises: iteratively optimizing, using a reinforcement learning algorithm, an output of the AI assistant (paragraph [0071]). As per Claims 7 and 14, Zhuk further discloses wherein the updating is based on a real-time context detected in the collaborative session (paragraph [0051]; paragraphs [0053]-[0055]; paragraph [0071]; paragraph [0088]). As per Claim 15, Zhuk further discloses wherein the program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a data processing system, and wherein the program instructions are transferred over a network from a remote data processing system (paragraphs [0028]-[0030]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuk in view of Shoemaker in further view of Vasylyev in further view of Barsness, US 7937728 B2 . As per Claim 16, the modified Zhuk fails to disclose wherein the program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use. Barsness discloses wherein the program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use (column 9, lines 5-18; column 9, line 63, through column 10, line 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Zhuk such that the program instructions are stored in a computer readable storage device in a server data processing system, and wherein the program instructions are downloaded in response to a request over a network to a remote data processing system for use in a computer readable storage device associated with the remote data processing system, further comprising: program instructions to meter use of the program instructions associated with the request; and program instructions to generate an invoice based on the metered use, as disclosed by Barsness, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Penrose, US 20200076746 A1 (managing content in a collaboration environment) . 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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. nhe /NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 2 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 3 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 4 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 5 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 6 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 7 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 8 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 9 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 11 Art Unit: 3628 Application/Control Number: 18/924,117 Page 12 Art Unit: 3628
Prosecution Insights