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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, have been amended. Claims 1 – 21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicants amendment has been considered.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
processing a set of communications exchanged between a member and a representative during an ongoing communications session to identify a family-related event associated with the member;
processing the set of communications through a template selection algorithm to identify one or more project templates corresponding to the family-related event, wherein the template selection algorithm is trained using a dataset of sample communications, sample project templates, and corresponding sample projects;
facilitating a project-specific communications session between the member and the representative through the [project-specific interface], wherein the project-specific communications session and the ongoing communications session are distinct;
processing a member profile and the family-related event through a project information machine learning algorithm to generate additional prompts for additional information usable to define a project corresponding to the family-related event;
updating [the project-specific interface] to present the additional prompts through the project-specific communications session;
processing new communications exchanged through the project-specific communications session using natural language processing (NLP) to obtain the additional information;
generating the project, wherein the project is generated using the additional information and a completed project template from the one or more project templates; and
retraining the template selection algorithm using an updated dataset, wherein the updated dataset is generated by adding the completed project template, the project, and the new communications to the dataset; and
processing other communications exchanged between different members and different representatives during other ongoing communications sessions through the retrained template selection algorithm to identify other project templates corresponding to different events associated with the different members.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor and memory). For example, processing a set of communications exchanged between a member and agent, processing anchor terms within the communications and generating a project involve interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Additionally, the claims encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to updating a representative consol interface and monitoring interaction (data gathering), Claim 3 is directed to interacting with third-party services, Claim 4 is directed to detecting selection of a project template (data analysis), Claim 5 is directed to updated project-specific interface (data gathering), Claim 6 is directed to updating interface to provide a set of resources (data gathering) and Claim 7 is directed facilitating a third-party communication session. Claims 9-14 and 16-21 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-7 and encompass same abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a project-specific interface. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a memory and a project-specific interface. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors of a computer system and a project-specific interface. Dependent claims 6, 13 and 20 recite the additional element of a representative console and Claims 7, 14 and 21 recite the additional element of a project-specific interface. These are generic components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer components (see Spec ¶0182).
For instance, the steps of processing a set of communications exchanged between a member and a rep, processing anchor terms included in the communications through a template selection algorithm, processing a member profile and family related event through a trained machine learning algorithm to generate additional prompts, processing new messages and generating the project using project template and info involve analyzing data and complex mathematical operations (e.g. data gathering activities). The steps of generating a project specific interface and facilitating communications session is displaying (opening a new window) a project related interface and sending receiving communications. The steps of retraining the template selection algorithm using an updated dataset and processing other communications exchanged between different members and different representatives is analyzing data and complex mathematical operations (e.g. data gathering activities).
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a memory, a CRM, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-21 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sehrawat et al. (US 2018/0012232) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2018/0054523) further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0181922).
Claim 1:
Sehrawat discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: processing a set of communications exchanged between a member and a representative during an ongoing communications session to identify a family-related event associated with the member;(see at least Figure 8A and associated text; see also ¶0055, conversation between customer and CSR; see also ¶0128, neural network is used to process customer message and customer profile are used to determine intent; see at least ¶0102, one or more messages are processed by semantic response to determine intent of message; see also ¶0015, semantic processing to respond to a request of a user)
processing the set of communications through template selection algorithm to identify one or more project templates corresponding to the family-related event, [wherein the template selection algorithm is trained using a dataset of sample communications, sample project templates, and corresponding sample projects]; (see at least ¶0128, customer message text is processed with a neural network and intent determined and where family related event is a label for an event, event reasonably could be a customer issue)
facilitating a project-specific communications session between the member and the representative through the project-specific interface, wherein the project-specific communications session and the ongoing communications session are distinct; (see at least ¶0176 and Figure 8H, UI shows customer communications to resolve an issue and includes payment button that upon selection returns a payment UI (a separate communication session) then once payment is made a return to the initial communication session; see at least ¶0060, CSR requesting a new web page)
processing a member profile and the family-related event through a project information machine learning algorithm to generate additional prompts for additional information usable to define a project corresponding to the family-related event; (see at least ¶0128, neural network is used to process customer message and customer profile are used to determine intent; see at least ¶0044, additional information received from a customer; see also ¶0050, the customer is asked to provide additional information)
updating the [project-specific] interface to present the additional prompts through the [project-specific] communications session; (see at least ¶0044, additional information received from a customer; see also ¶0050, the customer is asked to provide additional information; see also ¶0182-¶0183, troubleshooting tree where CSR asking questions and customer provides answer; see also Figure 8H and associated text)
generating the project, wherein the project is generated using the additional information and a completed project template from the one or more project templates; and (see at least ¶0091-¶0094, selected template)
While Sehrawat discloses the above limitations Sehrawat does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zhang further discloses:
facilitating a project-specific communications session between the member and the representative through the project-specific interface, wherein the project-specific communications session and the ongoing communications session are distinct; (see at least Figure 5A and ¶0101-¶0105, with new session additional information is requested/input; see also ¶0110)
updating the project-specific interface to present the additional prompts through the project-specific communications session; (see at least Figure 5A and ¶0101-¶0105, with new session additional information is requested/input; see also ¶0110)
processing new communications exchanged through the project-specific communications session using natural language processing (NLP) to obtain the additional information; (see at least ¶0051-¶0053, NLU (natural language understanding) based user intent; see also ¶0062,dynamic dialog state analyzer using NLP; see also ¶0081)
retraining the template selection algorithm using an updated dataset, wherein the updated dataset is generated by adding the completed project template, the project, and the new communications to the dataset; and (see at least ¶0061-¶0064, dynamic dialog state analyzer continuously receives and analyzes the input with NLP used to determine appropriate task; see also ¶0052, training the NLU model based on real and simulated user agent conversations)
processing other communications exchanged between different members and different representatives during other ongoing communications sessions through the retrained template selection algorithm to identify other project templates corresponding to different events associated with the different members. (see at least ¶0061-¶0064, dynamic dialog state analyzer continuously receives and analyzes the input with NLP used to determine appropriate task; see also ¶0052, training the NLU model based on real and simulated user agent conversations)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customer to representative conversation intent determination of Sehrawat with based on the context of the dialog switches to context relevant resources of Zhang in order to take action on the customer’s request (Spec Abstract)
While Sehrawat and Zhang discloses the above limitations Sehrawat does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Choi does disclose:
processing the one or more anchor terms included through template selection algorithm to identify one or more project templates corresponding to the family-related event, wherein the template selection algorithm is trained using a dataset of sample communications, sample project templates, and corresponding sample projects; (see at least ¶0247, model learner may train the data recognition model to estimate tasks or candidate tasks from keyword by using a template, a document corresponding to an item (e.g. work, a routine for shopping, child care, etc.); see also ¶0281, training using collected data and determining a keyword used to determine tasks)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customer to representative conversation intent determination of Sehrawat and based on the context of the dialog switches to context relevant resources of Zhang with the training of task templates of Choi to provide to assist users with tasks to be performed (see ¶0081).
Claim 2:
Sehrawat, Zhang and Choi disclose claim 1. Sehrawat further discloses:
updating a representative console interface associated with the representative to present the one or more project templates; and (see at least ¶0130-¶0131, selecting the template and presenting to CSR and updating in portion of UI )
monitoring interaction with the representative console interface to obtain the completed project template, wherein the interaction is added to the dataset for retraining the template selection algorithm. (see at least ¶0130-¶0131, selecting the template and presenting to CSR)
Claim 3:
Sehrawat, Zhang and Choi disclose claim 1. Sehrawat further discloses:
wherein performing the project further includes: interacting with one or more third-party services to coordinate performance of one or more tasks associated with the project; and (see at least Figure 8B and ¶0168-¶0169, suggested action may be presented as a result of third-party sending update data to the CSR device after processing messages received from the customer)
updating the project-specific interface to display updates corresponding to the performance of the one or more tasks by the one or more third-party services. (see at least Figure 8B and ¶0168-¶0169, suggested action may be presented as a result of third-party sending update data to the CSR device after processing messages received from the customer; see also Figure 8Q and associated text)
Claim 4:
Sehrawat, Zhang and Choi disclose claim 1. Sehrawat further discloses:
further comprising: detecting selection of a project template from the one or more project templates; and (see at least ¶0130-¶0131, selecting the template and presenting to CSR; see also ¶0132-¶0134, third party updating template with company and customer info)
automatically populating one or more data fields of the project template based on the member profile. (see at least ¶0130-¶0131, selecting the template and presenting to CSR; see also ¶0132-¶0134, third party updating template with company and customer info)
Claim 5:
Sehrawat, Zhang and Choi disclose claim 1. Sehrawat further discloses:
further comprising: updating the project-specific interface to present the project and a set of tasks corresponding to the project, wherein the set of tasks is determined based on the member profile and a cognitive load associated with the member. (see at least ¶0169, suggested actions may be presented as a result of third party sending updated data to CSR; see also ¶0132-¶0134, third party updating template with company and customer info; see also Figure 8E, recommended actions)
Claim 6:
Sehrawat and Choi disclose claim 1. Sehrawat further discloses:
wherein performing the project further includes: updating a representative console interface associated with the representative to provide a set of resources for performance of the project, wherein the set of resources is used by the representative to complete the project. (see at least ¶0173 and Figure 8E, interface includes several resources that a CSR may use)
Claim 7:
Sehrawat, Zhang and Choi disclose claim 1, Sehrawat further discloses:
wherein performing the project further includes: facilitating a third-party service communications session between the member and a third-party service for performance of one or more tasks associated with the project, wherein the third-party service communications session is facilitated through the project-specific interface, (see at least Figure 8P and associated text; see also ¶0188, third party company may transmit update to customer device displaying available dates/times to setup an appointment)
While Sehrawat discloses the above limitations, neither Sehrawat nor Choi explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Zhang does disclose:
disclose and wherein the third-party service communications session and the project-specific communications are distinct. (see at least Figure 5A and ¶0101-¶0105, with new session additional information is requested/input; see also ¶0110)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customer to representative conversation intent determination of Sehrawat and based on the context of the dialog switches to context relevant resources of Zhang with the training of task templates of Choi to provide to assist users with tasks to be performed (see ¶0081).
Claims 8-14 for a system (Sehrawat ¶0194) and Claims 15-21 for a CRM (Sehrawat ¶0194) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 1-7 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Sharma et al. (US 2022/022994) discloses using NLP intent model to determine intent of conversation and designed to receive a user utterance (in the form of a natural language request) and to appropriately take action to address the request.
Banjerjee (US 10609216) discloses the conversation template recommendation module to suggest the conversation template (intent based ) to the agent in real-time, based on the temporal goal-specific intent and the probability.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625