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 .
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.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
STEP 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a process and a system, which are recognized statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
STEP 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1-12 recite subject matter that falls within the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because the claims are directed to collecting input, identifying attributes, generating responses, and displaying output based on that analysis.
For Claim 1, a person can mentally formulate a question or prompt, or write a prompt on paper to pose to another. Composing a prompt is an act of evaluation and expression performed routinely in the human mind. The person can then present the written prompt on paper to a reader, or recite it. The recitation of a generic “display unit” merely instructs implementation of the mental step on a generic screen. The person receives a question from another by hearing it or reading it on paper, which is an act of observation. “In real time” merely describes the ordinary immediacy of a person hearing/reading a query as it is posed. a person mentally noting the language of the question, the topic, or the task requested. The person can be done mentally or by annotating the attributes on paper. Formulating an answer to a question in light of the observed attributes is exactly what a person does when thinking of a reply or writing an answer on paper.
Every step recited in claim is an act of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion within the mental-processes grouping.
The only recited structure is generic: a “processing unit,” a “memory,” a “computing device,” and a “display unit.” As known, reciting a generic computer performing generic computer functions does not preclude a finding that the claim recites a mental process. Here, the “processing unit” merely performs the human acts of generating, observing, evaluating, and answering. Nothing in the claim requires a computer for the underlying acts — a person could perform each step in his or her own mind or with a pen and paper, using the writing surface to compose prompts, note the attributes of a received query, and draft the response.
Claim 2 further recites displaying prompts in one or more languages. This is merely a content variation of the same abstract interaction management and does not alter the abstract character of the claim.
Claim 3 recites that prompts are generated based on user pCatalanond/or content being presented on the display. This is an abstract personalization and contextual selection step, i.e., data analysis and presentation of information, which remains within the abstract idea category.
Claim 4 recites receiving a selection from the prompts and identifying attributes based on analysis of the received selection. This is still directed to collecting input and analyzing the input to determine what response should be generated, which is abstract information processing.
Claim 5 recites that the interactive attributes comprise language, accent, and/or tasks associated with the input queries. These are merely different types of information being analyzed; the claim still focuses on identifying and processing user-related attributes, which is an abstract mental process.
Claim 6 recites transmitting the interactive attributes to an intelligent interaction unit connected with a multilingual repository, and generating responses using that unit. This is still directed to using generic computing components to process information and generate output. The recitation of a repository and interaction unit does not change the fundamental abstract nature of the claim.
Claim 7 recites a system for generating interactive responses using a processing unit and memory configured to perform the same functions as claim 1. The system claim merely recites the abstract idea implemented on generic computer components.
Claim 8 recites displaying prompts in one or more languages. This remains a presentation of information in a different language format and does not provide a technical improvement.
Claim 9 recites generating prompts based on user pCatalanond/or displayed content. This is still abstract contextual content selection.
Claim 10 recites receiving a selection from the prompts and identifying attributes based on analysis of the received selection. This remains abstract data analysis.
Claim 11 recites that the attributes comprise language, accent, and/or tasks associated with the input queries. This limitation merely specifies categories of information to be analyzed and does not add a technological concept.
Claim 12 recites an intelligent interaction unit connected with a multilingual repository, configured to receive interactive attributes and generate responses. This is a functional recitation of information processing using generic components and remains abstract.
STEP 2A, Prong 2: The claims, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims merely use generic components such as a processing unit, memory, display unit, computing device, and repository to perform the abstract idea. The recited computing device, processing unit, display unit, memory, intelligent interaction unit, and multilingual repository are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions. They are not tied to a specific machine implementation that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 7: Recite the abstract workflow of generating prompts, receiving input, identifying attributes, generating responses, and displaying output. This is simply using a computer as a tool to carry out an abstract conversational process.
Claims 2 and 8: Adding multilingual display does not improve computer technology; it only changes the content presented.
Claims 3 and 9: Using user preference or displayed content as a basis for prompt generation is an abstract personalization rule.
Claims 4 and 10: Receiving selection input and analyzing the selection is routine information processing.
Claims 5 and 11: Identifying language, accent, and tasks are data categorization steps, not a practical application.
Claims 6 and 12: Passing attributes to an interaction unit and using a multilingual repository to generate responses merely restates the abstract idea with additional generic components.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claims do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activities performed by generic computer components. The ordered combination of the claim limitations does not amount to significantly more because it merely arranges conventional steps of user interaction and response generation in a predictable manner.
Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(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.
5. Claims 1-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Catalano et. al., US 20240291779 (Catalano).
Regarding claim 1, Catalano discloses a method for generating one or more interactive responses for at least one computing device (See paragraph 0073–0074, 0349), the method comprising:
generating, by a processing unit, one or more prompts for the at least one computing device (i.e., generating one or more chatbot system prompts, see paragraph 0095); displaying, by a processing unit, the one or more prompts on a display unit of the at least one computing device (the chatbot system prompts are displayed to the user by the user system, See paragraphs 0095, 0328); receiving in real time, by a processing unit, one or more input queries from the at least one computing device (i.e., receives, from a user system, a prompt of a user during an interactive session, See paragraphs 0032, 0080, 0111, 0128–0130); identifying, by the processing unit, one or more interactive attributes based on one of the one or more input queries and the one or more prompts (i.e., understanding an intent … and extracting relevant information from the input of the user, such as prompt 302, See paragraph 0076. Also see paragraphs 0083, 0089, 0096, 0099); generating dynamically, by the processing unit, one or more responses to the one or more input queries based on the one or more interactive attributes (“[0032] … generates a response using the intent …” “[0077] … generates an appropriate response 308.” Also see paragraphs 0076–0079, 0092, 0098–0099); and displaying, by the processing unit, the one or more responses at the display unit of the at least one computing device (i.e., the response is provided to and displayed to the user, See paragraphs 0100, 0108, 0145).
Regarding claim 2, Catalano discloses a method as described above (see claim 1 rejection) further comprising displaying the one or more prompts in one or more languages on the display unit of the at least one computing device (“[0095] In some examples, as part of the response 308, the chatbot system 300 generates a set of chatbot system prompts that are displayed to the user 336 by the user system 306 that prompt the user 336 to interact with the chatbot system 300.”).
Regarding claim 3, Catalano discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more prompts are generated based on at least one of a user preference and one or more contents being presented at the display unit of the at least one computing device (“[0098] In some examples, the chatbot system 300 uses user data to personalize both visual and textual content delivered within an interactive platform. The generative AI model 334 … is fine-tuned using a rich dataset comprising user interactions, preferences, and behavioral patterns stored in the user data 324 … By maintaining a dynamic preference vector for each user, the chatbot system 300 adapts content generation to align with individual styles and interests.”…“[0099] In some examples, the chatbot system 300 uses the dynamic preference vector to understand the user’s context, including their intent and mood, to generate relevant prompts … By analyzing the user’s current activity, language patterns, and emotional tone, the chatbot system 300 crafts prompts and responses …”).
Regarding claim 4, Catalano discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), the method further comprising receiving, at the processing unit, a selection from the at least one computing device from the one or more prompts displayed at the display unit of the at least one computing device, wherein the one or more attributes are identified based on an analysis of the received selection (“[0097] In some examples, the user 336 specifically alters the ‘persona’ of interactions with the chatbot system by interacting with a chatbot configuration component 332 and specifically requesting that the chatbot system 300 respond or act in a specific way …”…“[0148] In operation 902, the chatbot system 300, using a chatbot configuration component 332 or the like, receives, from a user, a persona description 910 of a desired persona for the personal chatbot 918.”…“[0150] In some examples, the chatbot system 300 expands the persona description provided by the user into a description that contains additional details”).
Regarding claim 5, Catalano discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the one or more interactive attributes comprises one of a language, an accent and one or more tasks associated with the one or more input queries (analyzing the user’s current activity and language patterns, i.e., a language, and identifying intent-mapped tasks associated with the input queries, See paragraphs 0033, 0099, 0115, 0213).
Regarding claim 7 (same rationale as claim 1), Catalano discloses a system for generating one or more interactive responses for at least one computing device (a system for generating chatbot responses for a user system, See paragraphs 0073–0074, 0326), the system comprising a processing unit connected to a memory, said processing unit configured to: (a machine having one or more processors connected to a memory via a bus, See paragraphs 0326–0327); generate one or more prompts for the at least one computing device (generating one or more chatbot system prompts, ¶ 0095); display the one or more prompts on a display unit of the at least one computing device (the chatbot system prompts are displayed to the user by the user system, See paragraphs 0095, 0328); receive one or more input queries from the at least one computing device (receiving a prompt/input query from the user system, See paragraphs 0032, 0080, 0128–0130); identify one or more interactive attributes based on one of the one or more input queries and the one or more prompts (identifying keywords, concepts, intent, and context based on the received prompt, See paragraphs 0083, 0089, 0096, 0099); generate dynamically one or more responses to the one or more input queries based on the one or more attributes (dynamically generating one or more responses using the identified intent and context, See paragraphs 0076–0079, 0092, 0098–0099); and display the one or more responses at the display unit of the at least one computing device (the response is provided to and displayed to the user, See paragraphs 0100, 0108, 0145).
Regarding claim 8, Catalano discloses a system (see claim 7 rejection above) claim 7, wherein the system is further configured to display the one or more prompts in one or more language on the display unit of the at least one computing device (“[0095] In some examples, as part of the response 308, the chatbot system 300 generates a set of chatbot system prompts that are displayed to the user 336 by the user system 306 that prompt the user 336 to interact with the chatbot system 300.”).
Regarding claim 9, Catalano discloses the system as claimed in claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate the one or more prompts based on at least one of a user preference and one or more contents being presented at the display unit of the at least one computing device (“[0098] … By maintaining a dynamic preference vector for each user, the chatbot system 300 adapts content generation to align with individual styles and interests.”…“[0099] … By analyzing the user’s current activity, language patterns, and emotional tone, the chatbot system 300 crafts prompts and responses …”).
Regarding claim 10, Catalano discloses the system as claimed in claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the processing unit is further configured to receive a selection from the at least one computing device from the one or more prompts displayed at the display unit of the at least one computing device, and wherein the one or more attributes are identified based on an analysis of the received selection (i.e., the chatbot presents selectable prompt/persona options, receives the user’s selection, and identifies attributes based on an analysis of the received selection, See paragraphs 0088, 0095, 0097).
Regarding claim 11, Catalano discloses the system as claimed in claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the one or more interactive attributes comprises one of a language, an accent and one or more tasks associated with the one or more input queries (i.e., analyzing the user’s current activity and language patterns, i.e., a language, and identifying intent-mapped tasks associated with the input queries, See paragraphs 0033, 0099, 0115, 0213).
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 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catalano in view of DeCharms, US 2024/0273793 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Catalano discloses a method and system (see claim 1 and 7 above) further comprising transmitting, by the processing unit, the one or more interactive attributes to an intelligent interaction unit connected with a repository, and wherein the intelligent interaction unit generates the one or more responses (i.e., the chatbot system 300 generates a generative AI model prompt 836 using the user prompt message 826 and provides additional context for the generative AI model prompt 836 using the keywords and concepts 828. The chatbot system 300 communicates the generative AI model prompt 836 to the generative AI model 334. The generative AI model 334 receives the generative AI model prompt 836 and in response, generates generative AI model response 838 that is communicated to the chatbot system 300. The chatbot system 300 receives the generative AI model response 838) (see paragraphs 139. Also refer to abstract, paragraphs 141 and 258).
Although Catalano discloses a method and system as discloses, Catalano does not specifically disclose a method and system comprising a multilingual repository connected to an intelligent interaction unit.
However, DeCharms discloses a multilingual repository connected to an intelligent interaction unit (i.e., multilingual support module) (see paragraph 208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching Catalano with the teachings of DeCharms to arrive at the claimed invention. A motivation for doing so would have been to improve comprehension and user experience.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIERRE LOUIS DESIR whose telephone number is (571)272-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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.
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.
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights