DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite a method comprising:
identifying a user manual;
receiving user prompt;
generating information from the user manual; and
communicating the information.
The limitations of identifying, receiving, generating and communicating, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a user interface in a terminal device, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the user interface and terminal device language, “identifying”, “receiving”, “generating”, and “communicating” in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually identifying a user manual, receiving a question from another person, consulting the manual to gather information, and communicating the information to the other person, for example using a pen and paper or as a series of purely mental steps. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim using an interface and a terminal device to perform the claimed steps. This interface and device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic interface and device performing generic computer functions of identifying a manual, receiving an input, and providing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims further recite generating and communicating the manual information to the user using an AI co-pilot program. This further amounts to no more than merely instructions to utilize a computer programmed as an AI co-pilot as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.06(f). This also is directed to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological area (AI co-pilot) see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic interface and terminal to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claimed use of AI also adds mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, or generally links the use of the exception to a particular technological environment. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-24 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and only recite additional abstract limitations being performed by the generic terminal and user interface. Therefore, these claims do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The wording of claim 1 is generally vague and indefinite, and does not positively set forth and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. For instance, the preamble statement “a system of user manual” is a generally vague and confusing term. The limitation “and to be read” in line 3 is indefinite because it is not sure what it is that is to be read. It is also not clear as to what is meant by establishing a connection between a user with said system of user manual. This does not positively set forth the subject matter of the claim. The word “is interactive in response to user prompt” is also indefinite, as well as the term “in relation to”.
The claim includes the phrase “(defined below)” in line 9. This appears to be an error. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-8 inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 1 through their dependencies, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia et al. (US 2020/0216089 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 17-21, Garcia discloses a system (as per claim 1) and corresponding method (as per claim 9) and computer readable medium (as per claim 17) of user manual, comprising:
a user manual, comprising product or service information (collection of content portions relating to a vehicle, including a user manual – Par’s. 5, 62);
an identifier, configured to identify said user manual and to be read to establish a connection between a user with said system of user manual (content is stored with metadata identifiers – Par. 52);
a user interface installed in a terminal device, configured to receive user prompt and deliver information of said user manual (see Par. 73, Fig. 3C);
wherein the information of said user manual is interactive in response to user prompt and generated by an artificial intelligence co-pilot program in relation to said product or service information (see e.g. Par’s. 30, 60 AI co-pilot accepts user queries and searches user manual in response); and
an AI co-pilot program, coupled with said user manual, configured to communicate with a user in natural language in relation to information of said user manual via said user interface (see Par’s. 15, 30, Fig. 3D – program responds in natural language using the information from the user manual) (as per claims 1, 9 and 17),
said identifier comprises serial numbers, letters, symbols, RGB pixels, or the combination of any of the four (identifiers are plain text, i.e. numbers and letters – Par. 52) (as per claim 2),
said artificial intelligence co-pilot program is trained on the specific said product or service information, brand information of the provider of said product or service, protocols of customer support of said provider of product or service, and user prompt (Par’s. 56, 60) (as per claim 5),
said artificial intelligence co-pilot program is remotely located and electrically or magnetically coupled to said terminal device (as per claim 6), said artificial intelligence co-pilot program is located in said terminal device (as per claim 7), and said artificial intelligence co-pilot program is located in a second terminal device, whereas said second terminal device is electrically or magnetically coupled to said terminal device (as per claim 8) (see Par. 99 – all tasks may be fully automated by a computer system including multiple distinct computers or device connected over a network, including a cloud computing arrangement),
training said artificial intelligence co-pilot program with specific said product or service information, brand information of the provider of said product or service, and protocols of customer support of said provider of product or service (Par. 60) (as per claim 10),
collecting said prompt by said user interface; and training said artificial intelligence co-pilot program with said prompt (Par. 56, 60) (as per claim 11),
displaying greeting information on said user interface prior to receiving a prompt from a user (notification that the system has entered listening mode – Par. 72) (as per claim 12),
said receiving, processing, generating, and displaying steps are repeated (user may go back to previous screen after viewing content, thereby being able to repeat the process – Par. 78) (as per claim 13),
training said artificial intelligence co-pilot program with specific said product or service information, brand information of the provider of said product or service, and protocols of customer support of said provider of product or service (Par’s. 56, 60) (as per claim 18),
collecting said prompt by said user interface; and training said artificial intelligence co-pilot program with said prompt (Par’s. 56, 60) (as per claim 19),
displaying greeting information on said user interface prior to receiving a prompt from a user (Par. 72) (as per claim 20), and
said receiving, processing, generating, and displaying steps are repeated (Par. 78) (as per claim 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries 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.
9. Claims 3, 4, 14-16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia et al. (US 2020/0216089 A1) in view of Kensel et al. (US 2017/0083626 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, to the extent that Garcia does not disclose the terminal device is a smart phone or a VR/AR headset, Kensel discloses an adaptive content generation that contemplates a smart phone or VR/AR headset as the user terminal (see Par. 27, 33). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Garcia by utilizing these devices of Kensel. Such a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 22-24, Garcia does not appear to disclose directing said user to a live chat supported by human being (as per claims 14 and 22), connecting said user with a service provider (as per claims 15 and 23), and taking action on behalf of said user (as per claims 16 and 24). However, Kensel further discloses these features of live chat assistance (Par. 25), connecting with a service provides (Par. 28), and taking action for the user (e.g. trigger rules engine to make a decision targeted to the user – Par’s. 34-35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Garcia by providing these additional assistance options for the user, to obtain predictable results of assisting the user when the AI user manual does not satisfactorily respond to their query.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday Eastern.
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, Xuan Thai, can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights