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 .
Status of Application
Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 12, 14-17, and 20 were amended. Claim(s) 5-7, 9, and 18-19 were cancelled. Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 11, and 13 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-17, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, on page 9 of applicant’s response, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the claim interpretation of Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14, and 18-20 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see page 14 of Applicant’s Response, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection in regards to Claim(s) 1 and 14, have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 7-10 of Applicant’s Response, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to ‘Alice,’ 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-17, and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 15-16, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, do not fall within the revised Step 2A prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” As an initial matter, the above grouping along with its sub-groupings can encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-grouping(s).
In this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s) “providing a metahuman to interact with a customer,” “creating,” “providing,” “provide incoming and outgoing text tot voice generation,” “control textual responses,” “provide meta human features,” “engaging, to rely information,” and “displaying a agent to have a conversational voice, video, or text interaction,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and customers. The customer can interact with a digital concierge platform, which the agent is displayed for conventional interaction with the customer. Thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relationship such as providing information to a customer.
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 8-11, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to improve providing customer service through a virtual representative, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0010-0012. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., customer service) itself rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely making a bare assertation of the improvement without any details of how the generative LLM and/or cache bus improves interactions using non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components and/or architectures, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0052-0056 and applicant’s argument on page(s) 8-9, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 110
While applicant provides that the technical filed of customer service is improved by prior virtual customer service systems relied on static, predefined decision trees; used siloed, non- synchronized modules; produced unnatural, stilted interactions; and failed to deliver truly human- like multimodal engagement is solved through a specific technical architecture including text to voice and conversation control, metahuman feature rendering, and message caching bus to support accurate, low-latency, real-time execution, see applicants argument on page 8. However, the claims are not as narrowly claimed. There is nothing in the claims that provide how the cached bus and/or LLM uses pre-fetched responses nor do the claims provide technical features of the metahuman such as visual (e.g., lip-sync/animation). The claims fail to claim how the architecture reduces latency and/or scalability issues, thus the limitations amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it. See, Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) ('"[T]he prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment").
Also, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). The court also stated "[T]he only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 13; and "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the 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 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely providing, creating, programming, providing, programming, controlling, programming, providing, programming, engaging, and displaying, respectively, information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., an interface, a metahuman concierge platform, one or more controllers, generative large language models, functional process logic, a database layer, a microservice layer, a message caching bus, and a conversational agent) which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant’s limitations lack the detail as to how the generative large language models are performing these step(s)/function(s). There is nothing in the specification and/or claims as to how the LLM algorithm improves the system using non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components and/or architectures. Applicant’s limitations focus more on the result of using a computer to perform customer interactions for generating and outputting an conversational agent (e.g., “apply it”) rather than the technical improvement.
Also, see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, the court provided "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). The court also stated "[T]he only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 13. In this case, there is no improvement to the LLM algorithm, merely providing an algorithm to be used in a customer support context is not enough to be considered significantly more. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page(s) 11-10, that the claims are integrated into a
practical application since the system is improving the technological field of traffic management and the limitations are similar to Example 37 Claim 1, Example 44, and DDR holdings. Examiner, respectfully disagrees with this analysis.
As an initial matter, Example 37 Claim 1 as a whole integrated the mental process into a practical application because “the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” See 2019 PEG 2–3. Applicants’ claims are not analogous to Example 37 Claim 1 for the fact that the graphical interface provides no other function besides implementing an electronic graphical interface in its ordinary capacity for simply displaying data. Applicant’s limitations are not similar to Example 37 because the graphical interface does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, Example 37 Claim 1 was found that it could not be practically performed in the human mind, at least because it requires electronic devices to reflect an improved user interface and a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage, which is distinguishable from applicant’s limitations.
Furthermore, unlike, Example 37 of the 2019 PEG but, analogous to, TLI Communications, the court found that there was not a sufficient showing of an improvement in computer-functionality when gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Here, applicant’s limitations are not sufficient to show an improvement when the system providing incoming and outgoing text to voice (e.g., gathering). The system will then create application data (e.g., analyzing). The system can then provide a platform for allowing a customer to interact (e.g., displaying). The system can then display a conversational agent to have a conversational voice, video, or text interaction (e.g., displaying). However, merely gathering data and analyzing that data and then displaying information is not sufficient to show of an improvement in computer-functionality.
In fact, applicant doesn’t recite any step(s)/function(s) in the Independent Claim(s) of how the architecture interacts with the components of the system and how that helps with the reduction of latency issues. Furthermore, the claims recite the functional results to be achieved rather than implementation details. Thus “these claims in substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent- eligible." See, the above analysis; also, see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, should be noted that applicant’s limitations are not as narrowly claimed as Example 44, Example 37, and DDR holdings. Here, in this case the claims are not as narrow as DDR Holdings.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer- functionality. In this case, applicant provides improving customer service through a virtual representative, which if the system runs into complex issues then a human agent can resolve the issue, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0060, however, as stated above the mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 10-13 of Applicant’s Response, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-17, and 20, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Specification
The specification amendment filed on February 23, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Applicant on 02/23/2026 amended the specification to include “…A bus couples various system components including a system memory to a processor. The bus 108 represents one or more of several types of bus structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port and a processor or local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. By way of example, and not limitation, such architectures include Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, and Peripheral Component Interconnects (PCI) bus. The bus processor may include at least one shared cache that store data (e.g., computing instructions) that are utilized by one or more other components of processing elements. For example, the shared cache may be locally cache data stored in a memory for faster access by components of the processing elements. In one or more embodiments, the shared cache may include one or more mid-level caches, such as level 2 (L2), level 3 (L3), level 4 (L4), or other levels of cache, a last level cache (LLC), or combinations thereof….”
However, in the originally filled application and drawings, applicant did not provide the specific protocols, functionalities, or structural details of the bus and cache. Applicant, merely, provides that the message caching bus can relay information between a database layer and microservice layer which can provide up-to-date information, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0025 and 0056. Applicant, also, provides that the system includes an API and a controller for synchronizing call and return functions that represent the finished avatar presentation, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0041, 0056, and 0059. Applicant, also, provides that the database layer can store customer data and other data, see applicants specification paragraph(s) 0052-0056 and applicants drawings Fig. 1. But, at best these paragraph(s) merely provided a controller and API system that is able to synchronize the call and return functions. The system can also store customer information via the database layer, which will allow the system to provide the most-up-to- date information.
Thus, the originally filed specification(s), claim(s), and/or drawing(s) at best merely support that there is a messaging cache bus that relays information to a database layer and microservice. The system includes an API layer for synchronizing call and return functions. And the system can store customer data. However, there is no support for a bus that represents one or more of several types of bus structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port and a processor or local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. The architectures can include Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, and Peripheral Component Interconnects (PCI) bus. The bus processor may include at least one shared cache that store data (e.g., computing instructions) that are utilized by one or more other components of processing elements. The shared cache may be locally cache data stored in a memory for faster access by components of the processing elements. In one or more embodiments, the shared cache may include one or more mid-level caches, such as level 2 (L2), level 3 (L3), level 4 (L4), or other levels of cache, a last level cache (LLC), or combinations thereof. Therefore, the added material are not supported by the original disclosure.. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14 recites providing automated customer support for a business. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s) “providing a metahuman to interact
with a customer,” “creating,” “providing,” “provide incoming and outgoing text tot voice generation,” “control textual responses,” “provide meta human features,” “engaging, to rely information,” and “displaying a agent to have a conversational voice, video, or text interaction,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., including social activities and/or following rules or instructions). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, are similar to an entity interacting with a customer. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim(s) 1 and 14: an interface, a metahuman concierge platform, one or more controllers, generative large language models, functional process logic, a database layer, a microservice layer, a message caching bus, and a conversational agent) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “providing,” “creating,” “providing,” “engaging,” and “displaying,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim(s) 1 and 14: an interface, a metahuman concierge platform, one or more controllers, generative large language models, functional process logic, a database layer, a microservice layer, a message caching bus, and a conversational agent). Examiner, notes that the interface, metahuman concierge platform, one or more controllers, generative large language models, functional process logic, database layer, microservice layer, message caching bus, and conversational agent, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use 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) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely providing, creating, providing, programming, programming, programming, programming, providing, controlling, providing, engaging, and displaying, information which is no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., providing assistance to a customer) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to a identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial
exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of
recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the
recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the
above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds
significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 8 and 10: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 8 and 10 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 : The interface, mobile app, kiosk, web app, and holograph, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 2 and 15 and the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 : The microservice layer and rest API, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 3 and 16 and the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 : The additional limitation of “synchronizing,” “calling,” “returning,” and “presenting,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, as described in Claim(s) 1 and 14.The controller and interface, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “synchronizing,” “calling,” and “returning that will represent the finished avatar presentation,” function(s)/step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely calling, returning, and presenting, information which is n more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 4 and 17 and the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 : The additional limitation of “providing,” and “detecting,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, as described in Claim 1.The video module and large language models are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer The recitation(s) of “provides incoming video detection,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely providing and detecting, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 10 and the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 : The functional process logic is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 12 and 20 and the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 : The integration API is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 13 and the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-4, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 20, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-17, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0398794 A1) in view of Benden et al. (US 2025/0014730 A1)(provisional filed on July 7, 2023) and further in view of Karri et al. (US 2023/0073143 A1) and further in view of “Architecture,” by Miguel Veloso November 26, 2019, (hereinafter Architecture).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee, teaches a method for providing customer engagement comprising the acts of:
providing an interface for allowing a
providing one or more controllers for the
programming the one or more controllers to provide incoming and outgoing text to voice generation 0026)(Lee teaches a text to speech and speech recognition unit(s) (e.g., voice module). The speech recognition unit converts the users audio input to a text input and the text to speech unit is used to then convert the text response to an audio response. The text to speech and speech recognition unit(s) uses NLP
programming the one or more controllers to control textual responses of the
programming the one or more controllers to provide meta human features to the interface. (Paragraph(s) 0022 and 0029-0031); and (Claim 1)(Lee teaches an avatar animation module (e.g., avatar module) to generate an animated 3D lifelike avatar)
displaying a conversational agent to have a conversational voice, video, or text interaction through the interface. (Paragraph(s) 0024 and 0035); (Fig. 3, 310); and (Claim 1)(Lee teaches displaying an animated 3D lifelike avatar that will speak the audio response (e.g., conversational voice/video) along with facial movements. The user can speak to the 3D avatar via a video conference, which the 3D avatar chatbot can converse with the user)
With respect to the above limitations: while Lee teaches an backend portion of an application that includes various modules. The system allows a user to receive an avatar for providing responses via a mobile device of the user. However to the extent Lee doesn’t teach a metahuman see Benden et al. below. However, Lee, doesn’t explicitly teach a metahuman. Lee, also, doesn’t explicitly teach creating a database layer that contains application data. The microservice layer includes a business logic module. Lee, also, doesn’t explicitly teach a bus that relays messages to the database layer and the microservice layer.
But, Benden et al. in the analogous art of metahuman chatbot, teaches a
metahuman. (Paragraph(s) 0030, 0035, 0038, 0068-0074); and (Fig. 1)(Benden et al. teaches a kiosk is used in a clinical setting, see paragraph 0035. The kiosk includes a digital human (e.g., metahuman), which the digital human is displayed to the user via a screen. Benden et al., also, teaches the digital human can display a chat onto the user’s display. The digital human can ask how the user is doing and/or provide dialogue for the user’s appointment. Benden et al., also, teaches that the dialog flow of the digital human’s dialogue can include images and/or videos, see paragraph 0063)
generative large language models. (Paragraph 0037)(Benden et al. teaches using a large language model (e.g., LLM) for programming a digital humans for interacting with the users)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an avatar chatbot of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of a digital human that is displayed on a user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the responsiveness and ability to adapt to inputs by a user. (Benden et al.: Paragraph 0004)
With respect to the above limitations: while Benden teaches a digital human for chatting with a user via an interface. However, Lee and Benden et al., do not explicitly teach creating a database layer that contains application data. The microservice layer includes a business logic module. Lee, also, doesn’t explicitly teach a bus that relays messages to the database layer and the microservice layer.
But, Karri et al. in the analogous art of microservice deployment, teaches
creating a database layer containing application data. (Paragraph 0007)(Karri et al. teaches a storage layer. The storage layer includes data storage for the architecture such as the services layer includes the applications from the service layer)
engaging a message caching bus to relay information between the database layer and the microservice layer. (Paragraph(s) 0007 and 0041)(Karri et al. teaches a microservice architecture that includes a storage layer that includes an API layer. The system includes a system bus (e.g., caching bus))
programming the one or more controllers with functional process logic. (Paragraph 0007)(Karri et al. teaches a microservice layer that includes a services layer (e.g., business logic module) that includes business logic)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an backend portion of an application that includes various modules. An avatar chatbot communicates with a user by providing responses to a mobile device of the user of Lee and a digital human that is displayed on a user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., by incorporating the teachings of a microservice layer that includes an data storage layer and a business logic module of Karri et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to reduce the waste and cost associated with having to scale entire applications. (Karri et al.: Paragraph 0005)
With respect to the above limitations: while Karri et al. teaches a storage layer and a microservice architecture that includes the storage layer and the API layer. The system also includes a system bus, which includes a service layer. However, to the extent that Karri et al. doesn’t explicitly teach that the message cache bus relays information to the database layer and the microservice layer see Microservices below.
But, Architecture in the analogous art of microservice architecture, teaches message caching bus to relay information between the database layer and the microservice layer. (“Overview,..”); (“Event bus…,”); and (“Database Server…,”)(Architecture teaches an event bus that conveys events amongst microservices and their databases)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an backend portion of an application that includes various modules. An avatar chatbot communicates with a user by providing responses to a mobile device of the user of Lee, a digital human that is displayed on a user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., and microservice layer that includes an data storage layer and a business logic module of Karri et al., by incorporating the teachings of a bus that communicates with a microservice and a database of Architecture, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve performance and low bandwidth usage. (Architecture: “gRPC..,”)
Regarding Claim 2, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Lee, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the interface is at least one or a mobile app, a kiosk, a web app, and a holograph.
But, Benden et al. in the analogous art of a metahuman chatbot, teaches wherein the interface is at least one or a mobile app, a kiosk, a web app, and a holograph. (Paragraph(s) 0035 and 0038)(Benden et al. teaches a kiosk is used in a clinical setting, see paragraph 0035. The kiosk (e.g., kiosk) includes a digital human, which the digital human is displayed to the user via a screen)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an avatar chatbot of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of a digital human that is displayed on a kiosk user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the responsiveness and ability to adapt to inputs by a user. (Benden et al.: Paragraph 0004)
Regarding Claim 3, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Lee/Benden et al., do not explicitly teach the microservice layer further comprises a rest API.
But, Karri et al. in the analogous art of microservice deployment, teaches the microservice layer further comprises a rest API. (Paragraph(s) 0004 and 0007)(Karri et al. teaches microservices included an Rest API. The microservice architecture includes an API layer)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an backend portion of an application that includes various modules. An avatar chatbot communicates with a user by providing responses to a mobile device of the user of Lee and a digital human that is displayed on a user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., by incorporating the teachings of a microservice layer that includes an API layer that can be a Rest API of Karri et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to reduce the waste and cost associated with having to scale entire applications. (Karri et al.: Paragraph 0005)
Regarding Claim 4, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the one or more controllers synchronize call and return functions that will represent the finished avatar presentation to the interface. (Paragraph(s) 0030-0031); and (Claim 7)(Lee teaches an rigging unit and renderer unit. The rigging unit and renderer unit cooperate with the audio to face module and text to speech unit of the MMC module (e.g., controller) to generate the animated 3D lifelike avatar speaking the audio response with facial movement. The 3D avatar will then passed to the chatbot APP for displaying on the display of the user device) avatar animation module (e.g., avatar module) to generate an animated 3D lifelike avatar)
Regarding Claim 8, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the
With respect to the above limitations: while Lee teaches an avatar that includes facial expressions and voice along with movements. However to the extent Lee doesn’t teach a metahuman see Benden et al. below.
But, Benden et al. in the analogous art of a metahuman chatbot, teaches a metahuman. (Paragraph(s) 0032 and 0039)(Benden et al. teaches the digital human (e.g., metahuman) includes skin color and different facial features such as eyes, lips, face, eyebrows, and nose shape (e.g., rendering properties). The digital human can also provide emotions such as sadness, anger, disgust, contempt, self-hostility, fear, shame, shyness, and/or guilt (e.g., animation))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an avatar chatbot of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of a digital human that includes skin color, different facial expressions and emotions of Benden et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the responsiveness and ability to adapt to inputs by a user. (Benden et al.: Paragraph 0004)
Regarding Claim 11, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Lee, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the customer engagement is provided for a medical office, a legal office, a manufacturing industry, or an academic institution.
But, Benden et al. in the analogous art of a metahuman chatbot, teaches wherein the customer engagement is provided for a medical office, a legal office, a manufacturing industry, or an academic institution. (Paragraph 0035)(Benden et al. teaches the system can be for a clinical setting such as a medical office)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an avatar chatbot of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of a digital human that is displayed on a kiosk user interface for providing information to a user in a medical environment of Benden et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the responsiveness and ability to adapt to inputs by a user. (Benden et al.: Paragraph 0004)
Regarding Claim 13, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Lee, doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising providing an integration API.
But, Benden in the analogous art of a metahuman chatbot, teaches further comprising providing an integration API. (Paragraph 0034)(Benden et al. teaches a digital human that is programmed to communicate through an Application Programing Interface (e.g., integration API) to various services such as financial, clinical, or personal)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a module for converting text to audio using NLP of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of using an API for a digital human to communicate to various services of Benden et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the responsiveness and ability to adapt to inputs by a user. (Benden et al.: Paragraph 0004)
Regarding Claim 14, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches a system for providing customer engagement, comprising:
an interface for allowing a metahuman concierge platform to interact with a customer. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
a database layer containing application data. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
a microservice layer comprising at least one controller programmed to provide incoming and outgoing text to voice generation through generative large language models, to control textual responses of the metahuman concierge platform through generative large language models, and with functional process logic. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d-f))
a message caching bus configured to relay information between the database layer and the microservice layer. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(h))
a conversational agent configured to have conversational voice, video, or text interactions with the customer through the interface. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(i))
Regarding Claim 15, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 14 and wherein the interface is at least one or a mobile app, a kiosk, a web app, and a holograph. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 14)
Regarding Claim 16, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 14 and the microservice layer further comprises a rest API. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 14)
Regarding Claim 17, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 14 and wherein the controller synchronizes call and return functions that will represent the finished avatar presentation to the interface. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 14)
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0398794 A1) in view of Benden et al. (US 2025/0014730 A1)(provisional filed on July 7, 2023) and Karri et al. (US 2023/0073143 A1), and Architecture,” by Miguel Veloso November 26, 2019, (hereinafter Architecture), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Maurer et al. (US 2024/0176960 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, do not explicitly teach further comprises providing incoming video detection against large language models.
But, Maurer et al. in the analogous art of video data, teaches teach further comprises providing incoming video detection against large language models. (Paragraph(s) 0036 and 0162-0164)(Maurer et al. teaches an audio/video component. The audio/video component can manage one or more audio and/or video conversations. The audio/video component can be configured to coordinate with the messaging component to transmit communications in association with virtual spaces, see paragraph 0036. The audio/video component can process audio and/or video data between the attendees of the teleconferencing meeting, see paragraph 0162. The component can identify when a video has been initiated and stopped, see paragraph(s) 0162-0163. The system can use various ML models such as an large language model for the teleconferencing meeting, see paragraph 0164)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an backend portion of an application that includes various modules. An avatar chatbot communicates with a user by providing responses to a mobile device of the user of Lee, a digital human that is displayed on a user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., microservice layer that includes an data storage layer and a business logic module of Karri et al., and a bus that communicates with a microservice and a database of Architecture, by incorporating the teachings of a video component that can manage video conversations and coordinate messages. The video component can process the video data between the teleconference meetings of Maurer et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to help facilitate work communications. (Maurer et al.: Paragraph 0002-0003)
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0398794 A1) in view of Benden et al. (US 2025/0014730 A1)(provisional filed on July 7, 2023) and Karri et al. (US 2023/0073143 A1), and Architecture,” by Miguel Veloso November 26, 2019, (hereinafter Architecture), and further in view of Naughton et al. (US 2019/0371312 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture, do not explicitly teach wherein the functional process logic does not have a predefined decision tree.
But, Naughton et al. in the analogous art of chatbot platforms that use business logic, teaches wherein the functional process logic does not have a predefined decision tree. (Paragraph(s) 0087 and 0090)(Naughton et al. teaches a business logic layer that applies business logic. The business logic layer and/or module layer performs the mapping of message elements of each of the incoming request by using a graph traversal method (e.g., the functional process logic does not have a predefined decision tree). The graph traversal is a search technique that looks for patterns with the graph database based on the item relationships, which the business logic layer can process the request that have been expressed in an abstract universal protocol to identify the most likely matching module and feature of the features and modules layer)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an backend portion of an application that includes various modules. An avatar chatbot communicates with a user by providing responses to a mobile device of the user of Lee, a digital human that is displayed on a user interface for providing information to a user of Benden et al., a microservice layer that includes an services layer that includes business logic of Karri et a., and a bus that communicates with a microservice and a database of Architecture, by incorporating the teachings of a business logic layer that uses a graph traversal method of Naughton et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve the effectiveness of voice applications. (Naughton et al.: Paragraph 0059)
Regarding Claim 20, Lee/Benden et al./Karri et al./Architecture/Naughton et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the functional process logic does not have a predefined decision tree. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 12 and 14)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Implementing event-based communication between microservices (integration events),” March 03, 2023, (hereinafter Event). Event teaches an event bus that is designed as an interface with an API. The event bus uses messaging communication such as a messaging queue or a service bus. The event bus receives catalog microservice information and provides that information to other microservices and their databases.
“SOA Agents: Grid Computing meets SOA,” by Boris Lublinsky, December 11, 2008, (hereinafter Grid). Grid teaches multiple enterprise service bus that communicate with the service layer, application layer, and a database layer.
“Monolith vs Microservcies vs. Sewrverless: Which Architecture is the best choice for your business,” by Taras Tymoshchuk, September 11, 2023, (hereinafter Microservices). Microservices teaches a microservices architecture that interacts with the microservices and the databases.
“Using LLMs and VectorDBs as Cloud-Native Backing Services in Microservices Architecture,” by Mehmet Ozkaya, December 3, 2024, (hereinafter LLM). LLM teaches an API gateway that communicates with customer support, which allows the system to communicate with the vector databases. LLM, also, teaches an RabbitMQ bus that communicates with the microservice layer and the database layer. Examiner, respectfully, notes that the prior art publication date fails to predate applicants priority date.
“.NET microservices architecture explained: A complete guide with examples,” by Michael Chiaramonte, May 28, 2025, (hereinafter Net). Net teaches an event bus that communicates with the servers and the microservices, which the system can be used for customer support. Examiner, respectfully, notes that the prior art publication date fails to predate applicants priority date.
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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628