DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed May 7, 2026, applicant submitted an amendment filed on August 7, 2026, in which the applicant amended and requested reconsideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amended the claims and explained that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind as they require computational processing of multi-party conversation data through a trained AI model that applies weight values based on confirm or reject information and history information. Furthermore, it was explained that the amended claims solve a problem through a specific technical approach that distinguishes between slots, which handles real-world uncertainties in scheduling, by generating an event, by minimizing errors in the event extracted from the conversation content. However, such data is not explicitly recited in the present claim language. The claim does not expressly recite any specific, non-generic improvements to computing or device operation such as particular signal-processing algorithms, concrete hardware implementations, novel low-latency arbitration protocols, specialized microphone-array processing, or particular network protocols that solve a technical problem. Instead, the claim uses conventional computer/device components and generic functional language to implement the abstract idea. The mere use of an electronic device and routine networked communications to perform the abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. The Applicant’s specification, as of record, does not provide persuasive disclosure of a specific technical improvement (e.g., concrete signal-processing steps, specialized arbitration protocol with technical detail and behavior, or hardware architecture that solves a technical problem) sufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept that transforms the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Absent such limiting technical detail, the claim reads on the abstract processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating an event, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by mental processing, mathematical concepts or organizing human activity.
Regarding the independent claims, it recites mathematical concepts and mental-process-like steps (generating an event, extracting candidate slots, applying weight values, making determinations, generating an event and outputting the event). The specification nor the claims recite an explicit machine/architecture and there is no stated improvement to computer. The claims merely recite analyzing data and generating an event. There is no integration into a practical application.
According to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a method and device, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained above, the claims collectively and individually, fall within categories courts and USPTO guidance commonly treat as abstract ideas: mental processes (recognizing/extracting/organizing information), mathematical concepts (mapping text to numerical vectors) and fundamental data-processing/manipulation.
Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim focuses on collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The claim collects information, which does not change its character as information. The analyzing can be done by steps that goes through one’s mind, or by mathematical algorithms, which is essentially mental processes within the abstract -idea category. Presenting results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information is abstract as an ancillary part of collection and analysis. Here, the claim is clearly focused on the combination of those abstract idea processes. It is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Regarding step 2B, the present claims present no unconventional elements.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims recite training a model, however, the claims do not explicitly recite how the trained model is used for a particular purpose. The claims are presented at a high level and do not meaningfully limit the claim to a specific, unconventional improvement in computer or speech processing technology. The claims do not recite a particular hardware architecture, specialized data structures, concrete signal-processing steps, defined latency or safety constraints, or a specific machine-learning architecture or training regime that produces a technological improvement. The mere mention of training is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
The remaining claims recite similar language, including mathematical concepts and mental-process-like steps, which is non-statutory, as explained above.
Conclusion
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 JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights