DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
0. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on April 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Interpretation
1. Claim 1 recites contingent recitation in a method claim, note “whether” and “when” type conditional recitation, which in a method claim, fails to positively recite the claim recitation, see MPEP 2111.04 and Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims, particularly note "When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10."
The Examiner interprets “automatically” as the court did in a precedential case, note "Now turning to the merits of ApplyYourself’s cross-appeal, this court concludes that the district court gave “automatically” its proper construction. The term is a limitation of all the claims of the ’278 patent, and is shown supra in representative claim 1. The district court construed “automatically” to mean “once initiated, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Markman ruling, slip op. at 30." CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Double Patenting
Improperly requested to be held in abeyance 04/30/2026 (see Remarks below).
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). The Applicant can resolve this rejection as follows:
– Amend the claim(s)
– Cancel the claim(s)
– File a proper terminal disclaimer
However,
– Declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 are NOT sufficient to overcome this rejection
The claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim of co-pending Applications No. (A) 19/072,572 (claims 1-5 and 7-15); and (B) 19/057,482 (claims 1-12). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences appear to be in the terminologies used and altering certain limitations by claiming them as dependent claim and/or part of the independent claim, however the underlying inventive concept is similar in each of the applications which is to provide service(s) to users in a chat room environment based on estimation of unacquired information or unidentified parameter using one or more agents to generate a generative AI based response – which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Limitations in instant claim: An information processing method implemented by a computer, the information processing method comprising: determining whether unacquired information is present among pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user; identifying, when it is determined that the unacquired information is present at the determining, an agent that is estimated to have the unacquired information as a target agent; making an inquiry to the target agent that is identified at the identifying about the unacquired information; and providing the service to the user by using information that is obtained in response to the inquiry that is made at the making the inquiry.
(A) Limitations in Co-pending Application 19/072,572 (hereinafter ‘572): An information processing method that is implemented by a computer, the information processing method comprising: identifying a plurality of personal agents each being associated with a corresponding user among a plurality of users who are grouped; making an inquiry to one or more personal agents among the plurality of personal agents that are identified in the identifying about predetermined information that is used to provide a service to a group corresponding to the plurality of users; and providing the service to the group by using information that is provided by the one or more personal agents in accordance with an inquiry that is made in the making the inquiry.
(B) Limitations in Co-pending Application 19/057,482 (hereinafter ‘482): An information processing method to be executed by a computer, comprising: receiving input information including information on service from a user; identifying a type of the service and values of one or more parameters among a plurality of parameters used for providing the service of the type based on the input information received in the receiving; determining an unidentified parameter, which is a parameter having a value that is unidentified, among the plurality of parameters; acquiring the value of the unidentified parameter determined in the determining; acquiring information on the service based on values of the plurality of parameters including the values of one or more parameters and the value of the unidentified parameter; and providing, to the user, the information on the service acquired in the acquiring
However, it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to provide services by detecting unacquired information per instant application or unidentified parameters (see instant application claims 1 and 4, per co-pending applications ‘572 for instance note claim 3; and per ‘482 for instance note claim 1) to plurality of users in a group chat (see instant App. claims 8-10; ‘482 claims 3 and 7-8; and ‘572 claims 6-10) using generative AI (see instant App. claim 5; ‘482 claim 9; and ‘572 7-10) and estimating missing/unacquired/unidentified information/parameter (see instant App. claims 1-3, 10-12; ‘482 claims 4-8; ‘572 claims 7-10), in order to cover slightly varying scope and extend the patent coverage. Furthermore, instant app. and ‘572 app. make use of personal agents corresponding to users to provide personalized content. Thus, changes in terminologies, altering claim numbering of claim limitations, and/or omitting one or more features would be obvious to a PHOSITA. Further, the claimed elements would continue to function in the same manner to provide service(s) to users in a chat room environment based on estimation of unacquired information or unidentified parameter using one or more agents to generate a generative AI based response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are an apparatus; claims 12 is a method; and claim 13 is a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 1-20, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1-20 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of evaluating pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user to determine presence of unacquired information and contacting appropriate agent to acquire the unacquired information on behalf of the user which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to 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). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute, automatically transmitting over a network an inquiry, and transmitting a service request per claim 1, generative AI per claim 5, chat room per claim 8, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process per claim 13. Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figures 1, 3, 8 and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device(s) merely transmitting/sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Received data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes the users’ data to provide tailored responses. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a tailored content based on information about the user (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as network based communication environment e.g. Internet and in online chat room, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of evaluating pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user to determine presence of unacquired information and contacting appropriate agent to acquire the unacquired information on behalf of the user (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of evaluating pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user to determine presence of unacquired information and contacting appropriate agent to acquire the unacquired information on behalf of the user - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's data is received and based on analysis tailored responses are to be provided to the users]; and
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here users are provided tailored responses as output on interface].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 1-6, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (Pub. No.: JP6470246B2) referred to hereinafter as Nakagawa, in view of Agrawal et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0312879) referred to hereinafter as Agrawal.
Examiner's Note: Recitation(s) denoted in […] in claim recitations is/are not disclosed by the primary reference, however such recitation is taught by additional reference(s) relied upon by the Examiner.
As per claims 1, 12, 13, Nakagawa discloses
as per claim 1, an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute: (see [0018]; [0021]):
as per claim 12, an information processing method implemented by a computer, the information processing method comprising (see [0015]; [0018]; [0021]):
as per claim 13, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process, the process comprising (see [0018]):
as per claims 1, 12, 13:
(a) determining whether [unacquired] information is present among pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user (see [0046] “When the response search unit 203c cannot detect appropriate response information, the transfer destination search unit 203f searches the agent information database 211 based on the keyword or intent included in the conversation text, and the user terminal device 1 Is a module for detecting the agent identification information of another dialogue agent to which the sentence of the conversation from.” [0047] “In this embodiment, two types of transfer methods are prepared. One is a method of transferring to a chat BOT which is likely to be a hub, in order to prevent interruption of routing when the transfer destination is unknown. For example, as shown in FIG. 6, when the user inputs a conversational sentence "I want to make an Italian reservation", first, it is transferred to furniture BOT 20a likely to be related to the keyword "Italian", and this furniture BOT 20a is suitable. When it cannot respond, it transfers to the communication carrier BOT 20b which is likely to become a hub at first. Thereby, even when the gourmet BOT 20c is not registered in the agent information database 211 of the furniture BOT 20a, the transfer circulation can be prevented from being interrupted. Note that chat BOTs that are likely to be hubs are registered in the agent information database 211 in advance.”; [0048] “The second is to execute an accurate transfer based on a keyword or an intent for a query that frequently comes when the transfer destination is known and that the chat BOT itself should not answer. For example, when it is known that gourmet BOT 20c is frequently referred to for gourmet reservation, but it is known that a more accurate answer can be made with Italian BOT 20d, even if it is a query to which self-confidence can respond, the past response history is referred to Transfer to the chat BOT more frequently.”);
(b) identifying, when the processor [unacquired] information determination unit determines that the [unacquired] information is present, an agent that is estimated to have the [unacquired] information as a target agent (see [0008]; [0034] “The transfer control unit 205 is a module that executes a process of transferring the communication session established by the session management unit 202 to the other service providing server 2 or the information processing terminal 4 a which is an operator terminal. The operation of the transfer control unit 205 may transfer the dialog by the dialog agent to another dialog agent or may transfer it to the operator, and the transfer destination is transferring control by the transfer destination search unit 203f and the transfer processing unit 203i. It is selected based on”; [0035] “The above-mentioned various databases include a response information database 210, an agent information database 211, and a dialogue history storage unit 212. These databases mutually refer to each other by a relational database management system (RDBMS). It is possible. The agent information database 211 associates agent identification information (server address etc.) for identifying each of the plurality of interaction agent units 203 with the attribute of the response information stored in the response information database 210 that each interaction agent has respectively’; [0045] note “notifies the transfer destination search unit 203f of the identifier of another conversation agent on the transfer route. Do. The transfer destination search unit 203f is related to the transfer recorded in the transfer history information based on the notification from the cyclic reference detection unit 203e when the conversational text related to the search is a conversational text transferred from another dialog agent. Except for other interaction agents, search is performed so that the same interaction agent or transfer route is not repeatedly selected”; [0046]; [0078]);
(c) automatically transmitting, over a network, an inquiry to the agent that is identified by the processor about the [unacquired] information (see [0006]; [0009]; [0034]; [0035] “The above-mentioned various databases include a response information database 210, an agent information database 211, and a dialogue history storage unit 212. These databases mutually refer to each other by a relational database management system (RDBMS). It is possible. The agent information database 211 associates agent identification information (server address etc.) for identifying each of the plurality of interaction agent units 203 with the attribute of the response information stored in the response information database 210 that each interaction agent has respectively’; [0046]-[0048]; [0078]-[0082]); and
(d) transmitting a service provision request to a service provider via the network, the service provision request including the information that is automatically received from the target agent in response to the inquiry, and providing search results received from the service provider to the user (see [0006]-[0009]; [0024] note “service providing servers 2a to 2c are servers that receive product sales and various procedures for communication services, and are distributed on the communication network 3, and use natural language dialogue to respond to user messages in natural language. As a mechanism for automatically responding, dialogue agent programs 5a to 5c based on talkative bots, artificial intelligence (AI), automatic dialogues, natural language user interfaces, speech dialogues, etc. are respectively implemented”; [0025] note “service providing side in which chat BOTs 20a-g, which are dialogue agents specialized for various services, are extracted on the network by extracting keywords and intents, and responding to sentences, keywords and intents in the database. Provided by servers 2a-2c. Each service providing server 2a to 2c can be configured by a single or a plurality of server device groups, and the function of each server device is realized by a serve”; [0036] note “the response information database 210 is a database that stores response sentences and presentation information corresponding to keywords, intents, and combinations thereof included in conversational sentences in the dialogue session as response information.”; [0021]-[0022]; [0039]-[0040]; [0052]-[0053]; [0066]; [0067] note “response sentence or the like generated by the analysis unit 203b is delivered to the output generation unit 203h, and the notification such as the response sentence or the error message for the user is converted into a predetermined format such as text data, image or voice. It is output on the terminal device 1 side”; [0076]).
Although Nakagawa suggests determining intent and contacting other agents when intent determination based information is unable to be provided by the first agent, see [0041] note “analysis unit 203b includes a response search unit 203c, acquires information necessary for generating a response sentence from the response information database 210, and generates a response sentence using the acquired response information and response pattern”; [0045]-[0048]; [0080]; [0082] note “when each dialogue agent cannot respond by itself, the user U can be guided to the dialogue agent that can make a more suitable response by transferring the speech to another chat BOT”, in view of compact prosecution the Examiner has relied on Agarwal to more expressly teach [unacquired] information, i.e. Nakagawa expressly does not teach (a*)-(c*) [unacquired] information.
Agarwal teaches (a*)-(c*) [unacquired] information (see Figs. 3, 5, and their associated disclosure; [0117] note “based on the information received from the customer, multiple queries of data or identity databases or services are performed, to obtain information necessary or required to provide a rate, price or price estimate for a customer. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is provided by customer or customer's family member, agent or representative. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is obtained from querying one or more data or identity databases ( or data or identity services).”)
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of the foregoing teachings of Agarwal with motivation to create a user profile by acquiring information required to provide services to the user via external sources and/or user’s social connections, see at least Agarwal [0117].
As per claim 2, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor identifies, as the target agent, a service agent that is estimated to have the [unacquired] information among a plurality of service agents that provide respective services (see [0049]-[0050]; regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
As per claim 3, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor identifies, as the target agent, […] (see [0008]; [0034]-[0035]; [0045]-[0048]; [0078]).
Nakagawa suggests, see [0022], however Nakagawa expressly does not teach [a personal agent that is a personal agent of a different user and that is estimated to have the unacquired information]. Agarwal teaches [a personal agent that is a personal agent of a different user and that is estimated to have the unacquired information] (see [0066]; [0115]-[0117]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of the foregoing teachings of Agarwal with motivation to create a user profile by acquiring information required to provide services to the user via external sources and/or user’s social connections, see at least Agarwal [0117]).
As per claim 4, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor: receives input information from a user (see [0021]; [0038]; [0047]; [0056]-[0057]); and identifies a type of the service based on the input information that is received by the processor (see [0033]; [0047]), […].
Although Nakagawa suggests determining intent and contacting other agents when intent determination based information is unable to be provided by the first agent, see [0045]-[0048], Nakagawa expressly does not teach [wherein the processor identifies, as the unacquired information, information on a parameter for which a value is not yet identified among parameters that are used to provide a service of the identified type].
Agarwal teaches [wherein the processor identifies, as the unacquired information, information on a parameter for which a value is not yet identified among parameters that are used to provide a service of the identified type] (see [0066]; [0115]-[0117]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of the foregoing teachings of Agarwal with motivation to create a user profile by acquiring information required to provide services to the user via external sources and/or user’s social connections, see at least Agarwal [0117]).
As per claim 5, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 4. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor inputs, to generative AI, information that includes the input information that is received by the processor and information indicating identification of a type of the service, and identifies a type of the service based on information that indicates a type of the service that is identified by the generative AI (see [0024]; [0036]; [0041]).
As per claim 6, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor generates a request sentence that is a sentence for requesting the target agent that is identified by the processor to notify the [unacquired] information; and inquires the [unacquired] information by using the request sentence that is generated by the processor (see [0077]; regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
As per claim 14, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor automatically transmits the inquiry over the network to the target agent, and the target agent is a service agent that is estimated to have the [[unacquired]] information among a plurality of service agents that provide respective services (see [0006]-[0009]; [0021]-[0022]; [0024] note “service providing servers 2a to 2c are servers that receive product sales and various procedures for communication services, and are distributed on the communication network 3, and use natural language dialogue to respond to user messages in natural language. As a mechanism for automatically responding, dialogue agent programs 5a to 5c based on talkative bots, artificial intelligence (AI), automatic dialogues, natural language user interfaces, speech dialogues, etc. are respectively implemented”; [0025] note “service providing side in which chat BOTs 20a-g, which are dialogue agents specialized for various services, are extracted on the network by extracting keywords and intents, and responding to sentences, keywords and intents in the database. Provided by servers 2a-2c. Each service providing server 2a to 2c can be configured by a single or a plurality of server device groups, and the function of each server device is realized by a serve”; [0036] note “the response information database 210 is a database that stores response sentences and presentation information corresponding to keywords, intents, and combinations thereof included in conversational sentences in the dialogue session as response information.”; [0039]-[0040]; [0047]-[0048]; [0052]-[0053]; [0066]; [0067] note “response sentence or the like generated by the analysis unit 203b is delivered to the output generation unit 203h, and the notification such as the response sentence or the error message for the user is converted into a predetermined format such as text data, image or voice. It is output on the terminal device 1 side”; [0076]).
Nakagawa expressly does not teach, but Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]], accordingly, regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
As per claim 16, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor:
receives input information from a user (see [0047]-[0048]);
identifies a type of the service based on the input information that is received by the processor (see [0005]; [0033]); and
automatically identifies, as the [[unacquired]] information, information on a parameter for which a value is [[not yet]] identified among parameters that are used to provide a service of the identified type, and the processor automatically transmits the inquiry to the target agent to obtain the information on the parameter (see [0047]-[0048]).
As per Nakagawa expressly does not teach [[unacquired]] [[not yet]]. Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]] [[not yet]] (see Figs. 3, 5, and their associated disclosure; [0117] note “based on the information received from the customer, multiple queries of data or identity databases or services are performed, to obtain information necessary or required to provide a rate, price or price estimate for a customer. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is provided by customer or customer's family member, agent or representative. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is obtained from querying one or more data or identity databases ( or data or identity services).” – indeed a PHOSITA would understand required or necessary information which the financial institution do not possess as the unacquired information for which a parameter’s value is not yet identified and once acquired from another agent or source estimated to have that information, the finical service provider will be able to provide a rate, price, or estimate).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of the foregoing teachings of Agarwal with motivation to create a user profile by acquiring information required to provide services to the user via external sources and/or user’s social connections, see at least Agarwal [0117].
As per claim 17, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor: wherein the processor: inputs, to generative AI, information that includes input information received from the user and information indicating identification of a type of the service, and identifies a type of the service based on information that indicates a type of the service that is identified by the generative AI, determines the [[unacquired]] information based on the type of the service identified by the processor (see [0005]; [0024]; [0033]; [0063]).
Nakagawa expressly does not teach, but Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]], accordingly, regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
As per claim 18, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor: automatically generates a request sentence that is a sentence for requesting the target agent to notify the [[unacquired]] information; and automatically transmits the inquiry using the request sentence that is generated by the processor (see [0063]-[0070]).
Nakagawa expressly does not teach, but Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]] , accordingly, regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
As per claim 20, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 4. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor identifies a type of the service based on input information from the user and identifies, as the [[unacquired]] information, information on a parameter for which a value is [[not yet]] identified among a plurality of parameters that are used to provide a service of the identified type (see [0005]; [0033]; [0047]-[0048]).
As per Nakagawa expressly does not teach [[unacquired]] [[not yet]]. Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]] [[not yet]] (see Figs. 3, 5, and their associated disclosure; [0117] note “based on the information received from the customer, multiple queries of data or identity databases or services are performed, to obtain information necessary or required to provide a rate, price or price estimate for a customer. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is provided by customer or customer's family member, agent or representative. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is obtained from querying one or more data or identity databases ( or data or identity services).” – indeed a PHOSITA would understand required or necessary information which the financial institution do not possess as the unacquired information for which a parameter’s value is not yet identified and once acquired from another agent or source estimated to have that information, the finical service provider will be able to provide a rate, price, or estimate).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of the foregoing teachings of Agarwal with motivation to create a user profile by acquiring information required to provide services to the user via external sources and/or user’s social connections, see at least Agarwal [0117].
5. Claims 7-11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view Agrawal, in view of Morris et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0252108) referred to hereinafter as Morris.
As per claim 7, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 3. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor: receives an inquiry […] (see [0034]; [0035] “The above-mentioned various databases include a response information database 210, an agent information database 211, and a dialogue history storage unit 212. These databases mutually refer to each other by a relational database management system (RDBMS). It is possible. The agent information database 211 associates agent identification information (server address etc.) for identifying each of the plurality of interaction agent units 203 with the attribute of the response information stored in the response information database 210 that each interaction agent has respectively’; [0046]-[0048]; [0078]-[0079]).
Nakagawa expressly does not teach [about the unacquired information from the personal agent]. Agarwal teaches [about the unacquired information from the personal agent] (see [0066]; [0115]-[0117]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of the foregoing teachings of Agarwal with motivation to create a user profile by acquiring information required to provide services to the user via external sources and/or user’s social connections, see at least Agarwal [0117]).
Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach [[determines whether to provide the unacquired information in response to the inquiry that is received by the processor; and provides, to the personal agent, the unacquired information that is determined to be provided by the processor]].
Morris teaches [[determines whether to provide the unacquired information in response to the inquiry that is received by the processor; and provides, to the personal agent, the unacquired information that is determined to be provided by the processor]] (see [0100]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure users have agreed to be contacted and/or participate in information sharing per the preference, see at least Morris [0100].
As per claim 8, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 3. Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach [[wherein the processor identifies, as a target agent, a personal agent of the different user in a chat room of a group that is set for a plurality of users including the user and the different user]].
Morris teaches [[wherein the processor identifies, as a target agent, a personal agent of the different user in a chat room of a group that is set for a plurality of users including the user and the different user]] (see [0036]-[0037]; [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure most relevant suggestion can be provided to one or more users with high confidence based on behavioral data of the social connections, see at least Morris [0078]-[0079].
As per claim 9, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal and Morris teaches the claim limitations of claim 8. Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach wherein the processor includes a generates a message, the message being be posted in a chat room of a group that is set for a plurality of users including the user and the different user and being a message for inquiring the unacquired information; and posts the message that is generated by the processor to the chat room and makes an inquiry to the target agent that is identified by the processor about the unacquired information.
Morris teaches wherein the processor includes a generates a message, the message being be posted in a chat room of a group that is set for a plurality of users including the user and the different user and being a message for inquiring the unacquired information; and posts the message that is generated by the processor to the chat room and makes an inquiry to the target agent that is identified by the processor about the unacquired information (see [0041]; [0114]-[0119]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure most relevant suggestion can be provided to one or more users with high confidence based on behavioral data of the social connections, see at least Morris [0078]-[0079], by clarifying any unclarity in user’s query, see at least Morris [0116].
As per claim 10, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal and Morris teaches the claim limitations of claim 9. Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach [[wherein the processor: estimates a situation of the group in the chat room based on a message history of the plurality of users in the chat room, and generates the message for inquiring the unacquired information based on the situation that is estimated by the processor]].
Morris teaches [[wherein the processor: estimates a situation of the group in the chat room based on a message history of the plurality of users in the chat room, and generates the message for inquiring the unacquired information based on the situation that is estimated by the processor]] (see [0041]; [0098]; [0103]; [0114]-[0119]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure most relevant suggestion can be provided to one or more users with high confidence based on behavioral data of the social connections, see at least Morris [0078]-[0079], by clarifying any unclarity in user’s query, see at least Morris [0116].
As per claim 11, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal and Morris teaches the claim limitations of claim 7. Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach [[wherein the processor: estimates a relationship between the user and the different user, provides a message that corresponds to an estimation result obtained by the processor and that includes the unacquired information to the personal agent]].
Morris teaches [[wherein the processor: estimates a relationship between the user and the different user, provides a message that corresponds to an estimation result obtained by the processor and that includes the unacquired information to the personal agent]] (see [0100]-[0103]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure user preference and closeness are accounted for prior to contacting a social contact, see at least Morris [0100]-[0103].
As per claim 15, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa teaches wherein the processor automatically transmits the inquiry over the network to the target agent […] (see )
Nakagawa expressly does not teach, but Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]] , accordingly, regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach [[and the target agent is a personal agent that is a personal agent of a different user and that is estimated to have the information]].
Morris teaches [[and the target agent is a personal agent that is a personal agent of a different user and that is estimated to have the information]] (see [0036]-[0037]; [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure most relevant suggestion can be provided to one or more users with high confidence based on behavioral data of the social connections, see at least Morris [0078]-[0079].
As per claim 19, Nakagawa in view of Agrawal teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Nakagawa expressly does not teach, but Agarwal teaches [[unacquired]] , accordingly, regarding [unacquired] information note the rejection as set forth above for claim 1 limitations (a*)-(c*)).
Nakagawa in view of Agarwal expressly does not teach wherein the target agent is a personal agent of a different user in a chat room of a group that is set for a plurality of users including the user and the different user, and the processor: generates a message for inquiring the unacquired information;
posts the message to the chat room and automatically transmits the inquiry to the target
agent;
estimates a situation of a group in the chat room based on a message history of a plurality
of users in the chat room; and
generates a message for inquiring the unacquired information based on the situation that is estimated by the processor.
Morris teaches wherein the target agent is a personal agent of a different user in a chat room of a group that is set for a plurality of users including the user and the different user, and the processor: generates a message for inquiring the […] information;
posts the message to the chat room and automatically transmits the inquiry to the target
agent (see [0038]-[0041]);
estimates a situation of a group in the chat room based on a message history of a plurality
of users in the chat room (see [0039]; [0065]-[0068]); and
generates a message for inquiring the […] information based on the situation that is estimated by the processor (see [0040]; [0045]; [0091]-[0092]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify foregoing suggestions of Nakagawa in view of Agarwal with the foregoing teachings of Morris with motivation to ensure most relevant suggestion can be provided to one or more users with high confidence based on information being sought by one or more social network users, see at least Morris [0078]-[0079] and [0091]-[0092].
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
6. As per “Objection to the Specification” and “Claim Objection” they are withdrawn in view of the proper claim amendments.
As per Double Patenting, applicant’s response to the Double Patenting rejection was non-responsive. While the examiner could have issued a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment, in an order to further the prosecution of the case, he is instead warning the applicant with regards to the requirements of the MPEP with regards to Double Patenting Rejections. As per 37 CFR 1.111, "In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action". While, 37 CFR 1.111 allows for a request to "be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated", a Double Patenting rejection is not an objection or requirement as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims as noted in MPEP 804 (B)(1) "filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance." As such, a failure to address the Double Patenting rejection in future correspondence is likely to result in a Notice of Non-Responsive Amendment. The applicant can properly address the Double Patenting rejection by either filing a Terminal Disclaimer or providing specific arguments why one or more limitations in the claims, as amended, are not an obvious variant of the claims in the identified patent. Merely, amending the claims to recite a new limitation and stating that the applicant believes the Double Patenting rejection cannot be maintained over the claims as currently amended is not sufficient.
As per 112(f), the claims are no longer being interpreted under 112(f) in view of filed claim amendments.
As per 101, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. As explained under updated prong two analysis in view of filed claim amendments, merely executing the abstract idea as “apply it” instructions as the claims describe machine-to-machine communication at a high level of generality and generally linking it to a network based communication environment e.g. Internet is insufficient when the claim recitation is properly construed as a whole, note “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1-20 at least are a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute, automatically transmitting over a network an inquiry, and transmitting a service request per claim 1, generative AI per claim 5, chat room per claim 8, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process per claim 13. Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figures 1, 3, 8 and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device(s) merely transmitting/sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Received data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes the users’ data to provide tailored responses. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a tailored content based on information about the user (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as network based communication environment e.g. Internet and in online chat room, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of evaluating pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user to determine presence of unacquired information and contacting appropriate agent to acquire the unacquired information on behalf of the user (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.” Furthermore, note “Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)."” Thus, agent to agent communication to obtain missing information is insufficient.
Also the Applicant argues “Regarding Step 2B, even if the claims were found to recite an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the combination of elements in the amended claims provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.” However, the Examiner notes that the evaluation is that of one or more additional elements considered singularly and in combination. As already explained merely executing the abstract idea as “apply it” instructions and generally linking it to a network based communication environment fails to provide significantly more, note “per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1-20, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of evaluating pieces of information that are used to provide a service to a user to determine presence of unacquired information and contacting appropriate agent to acquire the unacquired information on behalf of the user - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's data is received and based on analysis tailored responses are to be provided to the users]; and
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here users are provided tailored responses as output on interface].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.”
As per 103, the rejection has been updated in view of filed claim amendments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the very limited characterization of relied upon references and appears to attack each reference individually, which is improper when a combination of references has been relied upon. For instance Nakagawa already suggests “determining intent and contacting other agents when intent determination based information is unable to be provided by the first agent, see [0041] note “analysis unit 203b includes a response search unit 203c, acquires information necessary for generating a response sentence from the response information database 210, and generates a response sentence using the acquired response information and response pattern”; [0045]-[0048]; [0080]; [0082] note “when each dialogue agent cannot respond by itself, the user U can be guided to the dialogue agent that can make a more suitable response by transferring the speech to another chat BOT.” Nevertheless, the Examiner relied on Agarwal to more expressly teach [unacquired] [not yet] aspects of the claim recitation in view of compact prosecution. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s limited characterization of Agarwal as a PHOSITA would understand that when a financial service does not have information that is needed to provide certain financial services and/or products that is expressly detected and acquired from another source, for instance at least note Agarwal [0117] note “the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is provided by customer or customer's family member, agent or representative. In some embodiments, the information necessary or required in a financial service or financial product rating process or for providing rate, price or price estimate for a financial service or financial product is obtained from querying one or more data or identity databases ( or data or identity services).”. Further, indeed based on search the conversation is transferred to agent that is estimated to assist the customer in providing needed service and response formulated, see at least Nakagawa [0063]-[0068]. The Applicant has also presented very limited characterization of Morris in view of single paragraph [0100] which is similarly unpersuasive. Thus, the combination of Nakagawa and Agarwal clearly teaches the claim limitations as claimed. Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Previously presented
- US2012/0016678A1 see [0010] “According to various embodiments of the present invention, intelligent automated assistant systems may be configured, designed, and/or operable to provide various different types of operations, functionalities, and/or features, and/or to combine a plurality of features, operations, and applications of an electronic device on which it is installed. In some embodiments, the intelligent automated assistant systems of the present invention can perform any or all of: actively eliciting input from a user, interpreting user intent, disambiguating among competing interpretations, requesting and receiving clarifying information as needed, and performing (or initiating) actions based on the discerned intent. Actions can be performed, for example, by activating and/or interfacing with any applications or services that may be available on an electronic device, as well as services that are available over an electronic network such as the Internet. In various embodiments, such activation of external services can be performed via APIs or by any other suitable mechanism. In this manner, the intelligent automated assistant systems of various embodiments of the present invention can unify, simplify, and improve the user's experience with respect to many different applications and functions of an electronic device, and with respect to services that may be available over the Internet. The user can thereby be relieved of the burden of learning what functionality may be available on the device and on web-connected services, how to interface with such services to get what he or she wants, and how to interpret the output received from such services; rather, the assistant of the present invention can act as a go-between between the user and such diverse services.”
- US2007/0162540A1 [inter-agent communication]; [0009] Lee et al. have proposed a component-based approach to enable CP-independent interaction amongst multiple agents (see H. Lee, P. Mihailescu, and J. Shepherdson: "Conversational Component-based Open Multi-agent Architecture for Flexible Information Trade", Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), 2782, 2003; and co-pending UK patent application number 0306294.0). In their approach, a so-called "conversational component" (C-COM) is used to encapsulate all the necessary process details and required agent actions for a service trade between multiple agents. A C-COM hides all the details of a CP used for a service trade whilst it provides an application programmers' interface (API) to communicate with an agent for obtaining required input parameters, and for returning produced ontology items to the agent.
- US9,318,108 Abstract “intelligent automated assistant system engages with the user in an integrated, conversational manner using natural language dialog, and invokes external services when appropriate to obtain information or perform various actions. The system can be implemented using any of a number of different platforms, such as the web, email, smartphone, and the like, or any combination thereof. In one embodiment, the system is based on sets of interrelated domains and tasks, and employs additional functionally powered by external services with which the system can interact.”
- US20190050708A1 see “<3-4. Conversation DB Update Process>
[0151] “Next, a process of updating the conversation DB 330 of each dialogue processing section 300 will be described. In the present embodiment, it is possible to make the conversation DB 330 grow through conversation with the user.”; [0152] “First, an exemplary data configuration of the conversation DB 330 will described in further detail with reference to FIG. 8. FIG. 8 is a diagram explaining an exemplary data configuration of the conversation DB 330 according to the present embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 8, each conversation DB 330 includes two layers, namely a personalized layer 331 and a common layer 332. For example, in the case of the character A conversation DB 330A, conversation data reflecting the personality and characteristics of the character A is stored in the common layer 332A. Meanwhile, in the personalized layer 331A, conversation data that has been customized towards the user through conversation with the user is stored. In other words, although the character A phoneme DB 42 and the character A dialogue processing section 32 are provided (sold) to users as a set, a certain user X and a certain user Y initially engage in dialogue with the same character A (the conversation data stored in the common layer 332A is used), but as the users continue to engage in dialogue, conversation data customized towards each user is accumulated in the personalized layer 331A for each user. With this arrangement, it becomes possible to provide dialogue with the character A that corresponds to what each of the user X and the user Y likes.” [0153] “Also, even in the case in which the agent “person B” is average persons of different generations without a specific personality like the character A, conversation data may be customized towards the user. In other words, in the case in which “person B” is “a person in his or her 20s”, for example, average 20s conversation data is stored in the common layer 332B, and conversation data customized by continued dialogue with the user is stored in the personalized layer 331B for each user. Additionally, the user is also able to select and purchase preferred phoneme data, such as “male”, “female”, “high-pitched voice”, or “low-pitched voice”, as the voice of the person B from the person B phoneme DB 43.” [0154] “A specific process when executing such customization of the conversation DB 330 will be described with reference to FIG. 9. FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating a process of updating the conversation DB 330 according to the present embodiment.”; [0174]-[0194].
- US20220366454A1 - Mobile chat application integration with promotional systems (see [0130]; also has missing info and soliciting missing info)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 EST.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights