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 .
Claims Status
This office action is based upon claims filed on 12/3/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method comprising: receiving, by a processing system, from a user endpoint device, a request to monitor an ongoing voice call for at least one task with which a generative artificial intelligence assistant is able to assist; monitoring the voice call; detecting, based on the monitoring, a task to be performed on behalf of a user; executing the generative artificial intelligence assistant to generate an output in connection with the task; converting the output to an audio output using the generative artificial intelligence assistant; and delivering the audio output to the user endpoint device during the voice call.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a process statutory category, claim 19 is directed to manufacture statutory category in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claim 20 is directed to a machine statutory category in the form of a device including a processing system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Accordingly, the claims fall within at least one statutory category of invention. Step 1: YES.
Further, claims 1-20 recite the steps/functions of monitoring a conversation, detecting or inferring a task from the conversation, generating task-related assistance using a generative artificial intelligence assistant, converting that assistance into audio, and communicating the assistance during the call. These limitations amount to collecting information, analyzing the collected information to identify a task or intent, generating responsive information, and presenting the responsive information to a user. The concept of monitoring call content, recognizing a user-support task, generating a response or assistance, and communicating that assistance is found to be an abstract idea because it can reasonably be characterized as a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity, such as customer support, scheduling, information lookup, warning a user, translation, or automated reply assistance.
For example, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following abstract-idea limitations: “monitoring…the voice call,” “detecting…a task to be performed on behalf of a user,” “executing…the generative artificial intelligence assistant to generate an output in connection with the task,” and “delivering…the audio output…during the voice call.” These limitations broadly encompass observing a conversation, determining what assistance is needed, formulating a response, and communicating that response, which are functions that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, except for the generic recitation of computer and telecommunications components. Therefore, claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. Step 2A, Prong 1: YES.
However, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional claim elements include generic computer and network components such as a processing system including at least one processor, a user endpoint device, a second device, a generative artificial intelligence assistant, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, an edge server, a core network, an access network, a network tap, a data source, an automated system, a human operator, a large language model or small language model, and text-to-speech/synthesized speech. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are used merely as tools to implement the abstract idea in a voice-call environment.
The claim language does not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, telecommunications network operation, speech recognition, text-to-speech processing, call routing, audio mixing, latency reduction, privacy preservation, or any other technology. Rather, the claims use generic computer/network components to obtain information, analyze information, generate information, and present information as audio. The limitations relating to an edge server, access network, network tap, and appending audio to a call amount to no more than generic computer implementation, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or field-of-use limitations. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A, Prong 2: NO.
The body of claims 1-20 only discusses using generic computing, artificial intelligence, speech-processing, and telecommunications components to perform the abstract idea of monitoring a call, detecting a task, generating assistance, converting the assistance to audio, and delivering the audio during the call. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they merely apply the abstract idea using conventional computer and network technology.
The specification supports that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the specification describes conventional communication networks such as PSTN, IP, IMS, VoIP, ATM, wired, wireless, cellular, LTE, and 2G-5G networks; conventional user endpoint devices such as smartphones, laptops, tablets, wearables, and IoT devices; conventional servers, databases, edge routers/servers, processors, memory, and input/output devices; and known speech-to-text, natural language understanding, language model, and text-to-speech technologies. For example, paragraphs 0027-0029, 0030-0040, 0063-0065 and 0071-0074. Thus, the claimed elements do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not recite a particular technical structure, unconventional arrangement, or technological improvement beyond what can be accomplished by a person observing a conversation, identifying a task, formulating a response, and communicating the response, with generic computer implementation. Step 2B: NO.
Dependent claims 2-18 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 2-5 merely specify generic network location or monitoring mechanisms, such as an edge server, core network, access network, application inside the access network, or network tap. Claims 6-8 merely specify monitoring utterances and detecting whether a task is explicitly stated or inferred, which remains part of the abstract idea of analyzing conversation content.
Claims 9-11 merely specify interacting with a data source, automated system, or human operator, which constitutes conventional data access or communication activity.
Claims 12-15 merely specify use of an LLM/SLM, text-based output, text-to-speech conversion, and synthesized speech, which are generic AI and speech-processing functions.
Claims 16-18 merely specify which call participant can hear the appended audio output, which is a result-oriented audio-delivery limitation that does not recite a specific technological implementation.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recite substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1 in computer-readable-medium and device form, respectively. The recitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, instructions, processor, and processing system does not add significantly more because those elements are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions.
In view of the above analysis, claims 1-20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This rejection is consistent with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the October 2019 Update, as well as the Alice/Mayo framework. The claimed concept reasonably falls within the broader abstract concepts identified in cases involving data collection, analysis, organization, and presentation, including Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc. (using categories to organize, store, and transmit information), SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA (comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options), Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing or using the recognized data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raanani et al (US 2019/0057698).
Regarding claim 1, 19 and 20, Raanani teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a processing system including at least one processor, from a user endpoint device, a request to monitor an ongoing voice call between the user endpoint device and a second device for at least one task with which a generative artificial intelligence assistant is able to assist (0029- For example, an explicit trigger can be a voice command from one of the speakers in the call, e.g., a representative, for invoking the virtual assistant system. The voice command can include a word or a phrase, such as “OK Chorus,” “Hey Chorus,” “Chorus,” or “Co-Pilot,” for invoking the virtual assistant system).
monitoring, by the processing system, the voice call in response to the request (0029- The in-call virtual assistant system monitors a real-time call);
detecting, by the processing system based on the monitoring, a task to be performed on behalf of a user of the user endpoint device (0029- triggers, 0031- analyzing conversation features to determine implicit triggers, 0076, 0079, 0080 and 0082 all discuss analyzing and determining data needed to executing tasks);
executing, by the processing system, the generative artificial intelligence assistant to generate an output in connection with the task (0069 states the assistant executes a task after identifying a trigger, 0079 teaches AI analysis, 0085 teaches generating the task result);
converting, by the processing system, the output to an audio output using the generative artificial intelligence assistant (0030 teaches results may be an audio file or vocal notification, 0085 provides specific examples of vocal notifications on the call);
and delivering, by the processing system, the audio output to the user endpoint device during the voice call (0030 and 0085).
Regarding claim 6, Raanani teaches the monitoring comprises monitoring utterances of the user of the user endpoint device and applying a natural language understanding technique to the utterances to detect when the utterances indicate a performance of the task (0022, 0031, 0072, 0080- disclose ASR, NLP, semantic analysis, AI and ML).
Regarding claim 7, Raanani teaches the task is explicitly stated in the utterances (0074 and 0086-0092- disclose explicit triggers).
Regarding claim 8, Raanani teaches the task is inferred from the utterances (0076, 0080, 0082 and 0094-0096 disclose examples such as “we’ll find time to review items…” and assistant set reminder. Also, “I’m not sure” followed by assistant finds information).
Regarding claim 9, Raanani teaches the executing includes interacting with a data source (0074 and 0079 disclose searching database, searching internet, retrieve previous calls etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Raanani teaches executing includes interacting with an automated system (0077 and 0095 disclose examples such as turning on a projector, mute participants, calendar server and traffic server).
Regarding claim 11, Raanani teaches the executing includes interacting with a human operator (0095 trigger is a speech by one of the speakers in the call).
Regarding claim 12, Raanani does not specifically disclose the generative artificial intelligence assistant comprise at least one of: a large language model or a small language model. However, it is inherent to Raanani’s rule based techniques to include language models.
Regarding claim 13, Raanani teaches the output exists in a text-based form prior to the converting (0019).
Regarding claim 14, Raanani teaches the converting comprises applying a text-to-speech technique to the output in the text-based form (0077 and 0085- the receipt of the email can be an event that can implicitly invoke the virtual assistant component 725 to perform an associated task, such as notifying the speakers, either vocally or through a textual notification, regarding the approval of the contract document).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raanani et al (US 2019/0057698) in view of Casey et al (US 2022/0124126).
Regarding claims 2-4, Raanani discloses monitoring an ongoing voice call using an AI virtual assistant to detect conversational triggers and perform associated tasks. However, Raanani does not disclose the system in implement in an edge server architecture where the user communicates through an access network to a core network or that the monitoring is performed by running an application inside the access network.
However, Casey teaches an in call virtual assistant with an end user communicating through a SBC and customer network to a SIP stack and AI service. Casey further teaches the network may include a both an access and core network (figure 1, 0022 and 0085).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Casey’s architecture with Raanani’s monitoring in order to improve scalability of Raanani’s AI assistant.
Regarding claim 5, Raanani fails to specifically disclose the monitoring comprises using a network tap to monitor the voice call. However, Casey teaches a monitoring device that is joined to an ongoing communication session by an end user device and SBC to monitor call audio and RTP media traffic and further teaches that the monitoring device may be incorporated into the SIP stack for monitoring. Under BRI, the monitoring device has a processing system using a network tap to monitor the call because the specification does not provide a limiting definition of network tap but merely states that the processing device system may use a network tap to monitor the voice call (see applicant’s PG-Pub specification para 0056- step 306).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Casey’s architecture with Raanani’s monitoring in order to improve scalability of Raanani’s AI assistant.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raanani et al (US 2019/0057698).
Regarding claim 15, Raanani teaches vocal notification but does not specifically disclose output comprises synthesized speech. Official notice is taken that it is well known in the art if virtual assistants to use a processor to synthesize speech. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani’s existing audio files or vocal notification to use synthesized speech in order to provide the user with an improved user experience.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raanani et al (US 2019/0057698) over Sohn et al (US 2019/0189120).
Regarding claim 16, Raanani fails to specifically disclose delivering comprises appending the audio output to the voice call in a manner that makes the audio output audible to the user, but not to a second party to the voice call. However Sohn specifically discloses comprises appending the audio output to the voice call in a manner that makes the audio output audible to the user, but not to a second party to the voice call (0063-0065, 0069, 0078, 0100- identifying an output mode for the AI service and in a non-public mode thereby restricting the AI response to the remoter party.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani’s existing audio files with Sohn’s non-public mode in order to provide to preserve user privacy.
Regarding claim 17, Raanani fails to specifically disclose the delivering comprises appending the audio output to the voice call in a manner that makes the audio output audible to the user and to a second party to the voice call. However Sohn discloses appending the audio output to the voice call in a manner that makes the audio output audible to the user and to a second party to the voice call (0065, 0069, 0078 and 0100- disclose a public mode in which a response signal of the AI agent is mixed with the user’s audio and transmitted to the counter part so all parties can hear the response).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani’s existing audio files with Sohn’s public mode in order to provide to user with enhanced collaboration during the call.
Regarding claim 18, Raanani fails to disclose the delivering comprises appending the audio output to the voice call in a manner that makes the audio output audible to a second party to the voice call, but not to the user. Sohn (as shown in claims 16 and 17) discloses public mode, non-public mode, among other modes but fails to specifically disclose delivery to a different party. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Sohn’s selectable output modes to provide additional mode in which the AI generated audio is delivered only to the second party and not the user because Sohn already recognized that selective routing of AI generated audio to difference call participants is desirable based on context. Providing an additional routing option merely involves selecting a different recipient and yields predictable results. Furthermore, as shown in claim 16, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani’s existing audio files with Sohn’s updated mode in order to provide to preserve user privacy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights