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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in application 19/005,229.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/848,355 and 18/120,395, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Support for the claimed subject matter is first described in the Specification of 18/486,063. Therefore, the claimed subject matter will be examined with the priority date of 10/12/2023 (the filing date of Application 18/486.063).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings (Figs. 3 (301), 7-10, 16-19) contain writing / descriptions that are too small and blurry to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim – Objections
The following claims raise an objection based on the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, and 10 recite “AI system”. Independent claim 1 should, at least initially, spell-out the acronym as “Artificial Intelligence (AI) system”. Grammatical correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 recites “the professional qualifications” which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected as being dependent from claim 1, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-11 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-11 are directed toward a process (method). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-11 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of managing interaction between people.
Regarding independent claim 1, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A computer implemented method of tele-professional communication comprising:
providing an internet-based platform through which multiple users may interact; [Methods of organizing human activity / Interacting and communicating (specifically, the concept of social networking, matchmaking, or general communication) - Merely providing a generic computer, network, or "internet-based platform" to facilitate human communication is a fundamental, well-known business and organizational concept]
enabling a first user to compose a question on the internet-based platform, said question stored as a user cookie data file in a data repository; [Mental process / Collection of information - Formulating a question is a mental process. Storing that information (even within a cookie) relies on generic, routine computer data storage functions without adding an inventive concept.]
providing verification of the professional qualifications of a second user on the internet-based platform; [Methods of organizing human activity / Fundamental economic/administrative practice - Checking and verifying human credentials, certifications, or backgrounds is a classic administrative task long performed by humans, and automating it on a computer does not make it eligible.]
using an AI system to automatically detect a technical field and profession for said question by extracting keywords from said user cookie data file, and tag the technical field and profession to said question; [Mental process (human categorization, reading comprehension, and subject-matter classification) / Mathematical concepts and data analysis (keyword parsing) - Humans naturally read text, extract keywords, and categorize subjects. Applying generic machine learning to perform this task speeds up the process but falls squarely into abstract categorization, as it doesn't disclose a specific improvement to the AI or computer architecture itself (e.g., a novel neural network architecture).]
enabling said first user to post said question on the internet-based platform and target said question, via the Al system, to said second user, if said second user is verified within the technical field and profession of said question; and [Methods of organizing human activity / Matching users based on criteria - The act of routing a task or inquiry to the best-suited person based on their credentials and the topic of the inquiry is a standard organizational practice (computerized automation of standard matchmaking and human interaction).]
enabling said second user to answer said question on the internet-based platform. [Methods of organizing human activity / Communicating - This step simply reiterates the basic communication loop of receiving and responding to a question, relying on conventional computer networking capabilities.]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)).
Dependent claims 2-11 provide further details to the abstract idea of claim 1 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 1.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-11 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “computer”, an “internet-based platform”, “cookie data”, and an “AI system”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The presence of artificial intelligence does not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The artificial intelligence model/ algorithm and computer limitations claimed herein are simply used as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the underlying abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. As claimed, the generalized limitations of artificial intelligence and computer processing do not result in computer functionality or technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The artificial intelligence and the computer limitation simply process the data through inputting and outputting data. Processing data is mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 Fed.Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, Lending Tree, LLLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(non-precedential). Thus, the additional limitations of artificial intelligence and computer limitations do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-11 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-11 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “computer”, an “internet-based platform”, “cookie data”, and an “AI system”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-11 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-11 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gutman et al. (US 2017/0039502 A1).
As per independent Claim 1, Gutman discloses a computer implemented method of tele-professional communication (See at least Figs.6-10; Para 0194-0199) comprising:
providing an internet-based platform through which multiple users may interact (See at least Figs. 6-8);
enabling a first user to compose a question on the internet-based platform, said question stored as a user cookie data file in a data repository (See at least Figs. 6-8; Para 0022-0023, Question Data Queued);
providing verification of the professional qualifications of a second user on the internet- based platform (See at least Figs. 6-8; Para 0022, “… delegating questions prioritized by their queue orders to verified healthcare professional users who are licensed with good standing.”; Para 0095, “… a method for evaluating a healthcare professional, in accordance with the first exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The method may be performed or facilitated using the Healthcare Professional Evaluation System 100 shown in FIG. 1. … ”; Para 0201, “Users without a license to practice medicine or doctor users without good standing status do not have access to answer the questions presented by users of the system 60. Thus, it is important to verify the identities of those users who claim they are doctors with good standing. To this end, the system 60 includes an authentication module 608 to verify the users who identify themselves as doctors licensed to practice medicine in certain jurisdiction and in good standing in that jurisdiction.”; Para 0203, “If the doctor passes the screening and is validated by the authentication module 608 to answer questions, the authentication module 608 will grant the doctor access through the system 60 to provide answers to pending questions. …”; See also Para 0077-0083, Para 0096-0109; and Para 0200, Authentication of the Doctors' Credentials);
using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to automatically detect a technical field and profession for said question by extracting keywords from said user cookie data file, and tag the technical field and profession to said question (See at least Figs. 6-8; Para 0023, “… processing and associating the question with the topic tags or system ID to organize the questions based on content”; Para 0091, “… The application 102 may further include or access computer program instructions which may cause a processor to perform any algorithms and/or functions described in this disclosure. …”; See also Para 0172, Para 0195, Para 0237-0240; Para 0267);
enabling said first user to post said question on the internet-based platform and target said question, via the AI system (See at least Para 0091), to said second user, if said second user is verified within the technical field and profession of said question (See at least Figs. 6-8; Para 0022; Para 0192, “… The present invention enables any patient (or other users) to solicit answers for health (or other) questions in a social network setting …”; Para 0193, “In accordance with embodiments provided herein, the answers are delivered solely by professionals having verified qualifications (e.g., licensed doctors) and in good standing within their respective profession. …”; Para 0206, “When a user inputs a question or key words (e.g., using an input box provided by the system 60 and displayed in a graphical user interface of the user's computer device 610) to solicit answers, the string content in the input box will be processed by the Question Processing Module 606 (FIG. 7, Step 202) and key words will be extracted. Techniques for identifying and extracting key words are known within the relevant field, and any such techniques may be utilized for key word extraction by the Question Processing Module 606. The key words are then associated by the Question Processing Module 606 with single or multiple predefined topic tags which may be stored, for example, in a database in data storage media 620. …”; Para 0226, “The doctor can specify fields that he/she has expertise or feels more comfortable answering questions in. If the doctor user does not claim a specialty, the system 60 will assign a specialty tag to the doctor based on his/her licensing information and publications. The specialty tag may be associated with the doctor, for example, in the doctor's profile which may be stored in a database in or accessible to the system 60. Such specialty tag allows the Queue Management Module 602 to only send the doctor questions related to his specialty and let the doctor answer questions he feels more comfortable with. However, such specialty screening is optional and the doctor has a choice at the Question Presentation Page to view either the questions solely from his own specialty or from all fields.”; See also Para 0207-0208, Para 0237-0240, and Para 0243-0244); and
enabling said second user to answer said question on the internet-based platform (See at least Figs. 6-8; Para 0022, Para 0192-0193, and Para 0243-0244).
As per Claim 2, Gutman discloses wherein the answer by said second user to the question by said first user is displayed with a special status on the internet-based platform if said second user is verified within the technical field and profession of said question, to show that it is a verified answer (See at least Figs. 8-9, Para 0204, Para 0226; See also Para 0244-0258).
As per Claim 3, Gutman discloses wherein said second user is only enabled to provide an answer to the question of said first user if said second user is verified within the technical field and profession of said question (See at least Figs. 8-9, Para 0226, Para 0244-0258).
As per Claim 4, Gutman discloses wherein the question of said first user is tagged as general if the AI system is unable to automatically select a technical field and profession for said question, and said second user is enabled to answer said question regardless of being verified on the internet-based platform (See at least Para 0226).
As per Claim 5, Gutman discloses using signals from a location device to determine the location of said first and second users of the internet-based platform, wherein the location device is one of or any combination of a global positioning satellite, WiFi, a mobile transceiver, and a mobile terminal (See at least Fig.8, Para 0223-0224, Para 0250; and Para 0472, “.. map of the doctor's location.”; See also Para 0121).
As per Claim 6 (5), Gutman discloses wherein the AI system is also used to automatically detect a city, country and region for the question and tag it to said question, and the first user is enabled to post said question on the internet-based platform, and to target said question to said second user, if said second user is located in the tagged location of said question (See at least Para 0223-0224, Para 0250; and Para 0472; See also Para 0091, and Para 0121).
As per Claim 7 (6), Gutman discloses wherein said second user is only enabled to answer the question if said second user is located in the tagged location of said question (See at least Para 0223-0224, Para 0250; and Para 0472; See also Para 0121).
As per Claim 8, Gutman discloses wherein the question is automatically removed from the internet-based platform 24 hours (time limit) after it is posted to the internet-based platform (See at least Para 0231-0232, “When a question is not answered within this time limit, the system 60 will send a message to the question posting user to remind him/her that his/her questions are still not answered. The system 60 can also give the user a choice to modify the questions and try again.”).
As per Claim 9, Gutman discloses wherein the languages written and spoken by a user on the internet- based platform are automatically detected by the AI system and tagged to the user (See at least Para 0206-0208, and Para 0351, “Data may be based on user-input information at the time of the interaction, and can include: natural-language processing of the user request, user identified preferences or needs for the appropriate entry point, … “; See also Figs. 8-9, Para 0091, Para 0226, Para 0244-0258).
As per Claim 10 (9), Gutman discloses wherein the AI system automatically tags languages to the question of said first user, based on the languages already tagged to said first user, and said first user is enabled to post said question on the internet-based platform and target said question towards said second user if said second user shares a common language with said first user (See at least Para 0206-0208 and Para 0351; See also Figs. 8-9, Para 0091, Para 0226, Para 0244-0258).
As per Claim 11, Gutman discloses wherein said second user may adjust their preferences on the internet-based platform to be targeted by questions only in specified technical fields and professions, and to be targeted by questions only in a specified city, country and region (See at least Para 0206-0208 and Para 0351; See also Figs. 8-9, Para 0226, Para 0244-0258).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
July 2, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights