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 Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the “transformation layer” integrates the idea of rephrasing queries into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Inasmuch as a “transformation layer” can be found in the claims, it is in the identifying, selecting, and executing of a tool to create an optimized query. These elements have been rejected as abstract ideas of forming a judgment and mere instruction to apply. Applicant provides no argument how the instructions to apply a tool to create the optimized query are not mere instructions to apply a tool to create the optimized query. Reciting an outcome without details of how the outcome is achieved does not improve technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“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.”).
Applicant argues that the recited mental processes are not practically performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Accelerating a process of rephrasing a query when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer does not improve technology. MPEP § 2106.05(a).
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining that input from the enterprise artificial intelligence system is needed to respond to the query,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, e.g., that surveillance resources in a mall obtained from an enterprise virtual assistant associated with the mall would be useful in responding to a query where a robbery suspect was last seen inside a shopping mall. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining, based on the query, that the query includes public safety specific context that will not be correctly understood by the enterprise artificial intelligence,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, e.g., that the enterprise virtual assistant associated is not likely to understand what the word “suspect” means. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “transforming the query, based on the context, to an optimized query, wherein the optimized query will be correctly understood by the enterprise artificial intelligence,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “transforming” encompasses a judgment, at a high level of generality, e.g., that the enterprise virtual assistant associated is likely to understand what the word “person” means, and therefore to replace the word “suspect” with “person” in the query. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “identifying a set of tools available in the enterprise artificial intelligence system,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment, at a high level of generality, e.g., what rubrics exist to transform a query into a different context. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “selecting a subset of the available tools in the enterprise artificial intelligence system to transform the query based on the public safety specific context,” as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment, at a high level of generality, e.g., which existing rubric to use to transform a query into a different context. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
For the purposes of evaluating whether the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea or is significantly more than an abstract idea, these recited abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely, but for the recitation of generic computer components, rephrasing a query to a virtual assistant based on knowledge about the particular domain the virtual assistant was trained on. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of rephrasing a query to a virtual assistant based on knowledge about the particular domain the virtual assistant was trained on is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving, by the public safety artificial intelligence system, from a public safety user, a query to the public safety artificial intelligence system,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the public safety artificial intelligence system receiving the query is recited without detail of how the public safety artificial intelligence system receives the query, and is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)), 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “executing the selected subset of tools to create the optimized query,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of the tool creating the optimized query is recited without detail of how the tool creates the optimized query. MPEP § 2160.05(f).
The additional element, “sending the optimized query to the enterprise artificial intelligence system,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of sending the query to the enterprise artificial intelligence system is recited without details of how the optimized query is sent, and is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “receiving a response to the optimized query from the enterprise artificial intelligence system,” is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract idea because the outcome of receiving the response is recited without detail of how the response is received, and is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of rephrasing a query to a virtual assistant based on knowledge about the particular domain the virtual assistant was trained on on a computer, because the computer merely is invoked as a tool to perform the idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving, by the public safety artificial intelligence system, from a public safety user, a query to the public safety artificial intelligence system,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0011], as a commercially available product. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “sending the optimized query to the enterprise artificial intelligence system,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0012], as a commercially available product. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “receiving a response to the optimized query from the enterprise artificial intelligence system,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0012], as a commercially available product. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of rephrasing a query to a virtual assistant based on knowledge about the particular domain the virtual assistant was trained on because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3, 10, and 17:
The abstract idea of forming a judgment how to transform the context of a query is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “retrieving, based on the public safety specific context, data relevant to a context associated with the enterprise artificial intelligence,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the forming a judgment how to transform the context of a query on a computer because the computer is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “retrieving, based on the public safety specific context, data relevant to a context associated with the enterprise artificial intelligence,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of rephrasing a query to a virtual assistant based on knowledge about the particular domain the virtual assistant was trained on because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4, 11, and 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining a portion of the query has a public safety specific context,” 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. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., “suspect” has a public safety specific context. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “identifying a query that corresponds to the portion of the query in a context associated with the enterprise artificial intelligence,” 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. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., “person” corresponds to “suspect” in an enterprise context. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “substituting the portion of the query with the identified query,” 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. For example, in the context of this limitation, “substituting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., to replace “suspect” with “person.” This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the portion of the query is a request to establish a perimeter and the identified query is a request to set up a workflow with a tripwire analytic,” 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. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., “establish a perimeter” corresponds to “set up a tripwire analytic” in an enterprise context. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6, 13, and 19:
The abstract idea of forming a judgment how to transform the context of a query is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein a tool of the set of tools further comprises: retrieving a chat history of a source of the query,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the forming a judgment how to transform the context of a query on a computer because the computer is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein a tool of the set of tools further comprises: retrieving a chat history of a source of the query,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of rephrasing a query to a virtual assistant based on knowledge about the particular domain the virtual assistant was trained on because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7, 14, and 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein a tool of the set of tools further comprises: executing a video analytic on a video associated with the query,” 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. For example, in the context of this limitation, “analyzing” encompasses a person forming a judgment, i.e., by analyzing a video. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach the abstract idea of transforming a query to a public safety artificial intelligence system to an optimized query that will be correctly understood by an enterprise artificial intelligence system whose input is needed to respond to the original query.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights