Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 03/24/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Abstract
The Abstract filed on 03/24/2025 has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 03/24/2025 have been considered as to the merits.
Double Patenting
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 timewise 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).
Claims 1-20, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/595,992. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 1-20 of the present application merely repeat the features of claims 1-20 of US copending Application No. 18/595,992 with lesser limitations. Since the difference of the claimed subject matters in scope is deminims and unrelated to the overall aesthetic appearance of the claims being compared. In addition, it is obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to remove limitations from the claims for the purpose to extend a more broader intentional usage for his/hers invention.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 17, and 17
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the following limitation directed to an abstract idea:
“generating…”, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
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.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claims recite the following additional elements:
“receiving…; parsing… executing…; and displaying…”, represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“artificial intelligence and machine learning(AI/ML); a customer relationship management (CRM) database; a multi-client service system platform” are mere implementations using a computer. It is at best generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning (see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“chat interface; non-transitory computer readable medium”, recites at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer, mere field of use, and using generic computer components (i.e. ML) as a tool are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
“receiving…; parsing… executing…”identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "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); … 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);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
“displaying…”, which is identified identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … 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)"
“chat interface; non-transitory computer readable medium”, amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: relevant court decision: the followings are example of the court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see versata Dev. Group, Inc. v SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to the functioning
of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 5, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9, recites the additional limitation. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10, recites the additional limitations of " receiving " and " creating " which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
Claim 11, recites the additional limitation of "creating… " which is process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
“sending…”, represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12, recites the additional limitation of " obtaining " which is process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
“displaying …”, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13, recites the additional limitation, which is represent(s) an extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presenting of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 14, recites the additional limitation of " capturing…create.. ", which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
“transcribing…”, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer
(MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15, recites the additional limitation of " logging and segmenting " which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
Claim 16, recite the additional limitation “importing …”, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 18, recites the additional limitation of “generating… " which is process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
Claim 19, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20, recites the additional limitation of “generating… " which is process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderlich et al., (US 2018/0260462), hereinafter “Wunderlich”, in view of Lange et al., (US 2017/0330195), hereinafter “Lange”.
Claim 1, Wunderlich discloses A system comprising: a customer relationship management (CRM) database (par. [0024], [0051] and [0064]-[0065], a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system and a platform that provides Customer Relationship Management, shared database(s), inventory tracking, social media, and CRM database)
However, Wunderlich fails to teach “a multi-client service system platform that includes an artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) concierge configured to host a chat interface”.
a multi-client service system platform that includes an artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) concierge configured to host a chat interface”.
Meanwhile, Lange discloses a multi-client service system platform that includes an artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) concierge configured to host a chat interface (par. [0077] and [0092], CoPilot initiative yield a dynamic, fluid, etc. digital assistant that among other things leverages Natural Language Processing (NLP), learning capabilities, etc. to provide support for seamless conversational interactions, wherein machine learning anticipates events and recommends actions based on individual and team behavior and proactively pushes content for better decision making.), wherein the AI/ML concierge performs operations including:
receiving a natural language command through the chat interface (par. [0006] and [0086], receiving user input to at least one support ticket and enables a chat with a user operating on an internal support system and enables a search of a customer support system for information related to the support ticket, wherein conversational (multi-modal) user interface communicates with you using natural human language via text);;
- parsing the natural language command using AI/ML parsing functionality to determine a desired outcome (par. [0078]-[0080] and [0117], natural language plugins could consider the conversational context when parsing the text, wherein the CoPilot analyzing the text entries for recognizing and identifying relevant text related objects, helping the user from the identification of an issue to a solution for the issue);
- generating programming code for execution to achieve the desired outcome (par. [0081]-[0083], CoPilot communicates, collaborates, and creates actionable transactions in desktop or mobile scenarios);
- executing the programming code to generate content related to the desired outcome, wherein the programming code interacts with objects within the CRM database (par. [0214], executing and resolving a value list if the target property requires it), wherein the programming code interacts with objects within the CRM database (par. [0054]-[0056], user interacts with each tile to navigate to the specific enterprise application associated with the tile, wherein the tile represents a particular customer relationship management (CRM)); par. [0253], display of results from the customer support system on the integrated support user interface); and
- displaying the content through the chat interface (par. [0253], display of results from the customer support system on the integrated support user interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wunderlich to include the
features as disclosed by Lange in order to provide the plurality of multiple different software
applications to register with and connect to the integrated support user interface functions for
user.
Claim 2, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses the AI/ML concierge displays a suggestion interface populated with suggested natural language commands (par. [0080], CoPilot application recommends contextual entities for use in a current task and understands user context and can intelligently propose selections, auto-entries, and user options).
Claim 3, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses the AI/ML concierge transitions a user from the chat interface to a CRM application (par. [0054]-[0056], user interacts with each tile to navigate to the specific enterprise application associated with the tile, wherein the tile represents a particular customer relationship management (CRM)).
Claim 4, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses the AI/ML concierge transitions a user from the chat interface to a spreadsheet application displaying a spreadsheet generated and populated by the AI/ML concierge using information within the content displayed through the chat interface (par. [0105], CoPilot would pick a proper UI Pattern and use the UI semantics provided by the Data Agent to compose the notification view fragment, for example Quick View panels for business objects, Tables and Charts for analytical data).
Claim 5, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses the AI/ML concierge transitions a user from the chat interface to a presentation application displaying a presentation generated and populated by the AI/ML concierge using information within the content displayed through the chat interface (par. [0054], launchpad presents (displays on a screen of a computing device of a user) each application represented by a tile).
Claim 6, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses the AI/ML concierge transitions a user from the chat interface to a blog service displaying a blog generated by the AI/ML concierge using information within the content displayed through the chat interface (par. [0039], allowing customers to chat with external support agents who are assigned to the conversation in the context of the application).
Claim 7, is a method for performing the system claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses providing, through the chat interface, a toggle option to toggle between manual creation and AI generated content by the AI/ML concierge for creating new content (par. [0250], provide help documents and search capabilities for help documents and plug them into CoPilot so that those documents appear in CoPilot's integrated help whenever they fit to the application context, user context or chat context).
Claim 9, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, executing a database command to modify the CRM database.
Claim 10, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface (par. [0054]-[0056], [0109] and [0195], CoPilot user interface on a mobile device, a project manager (PM) at company X opens the CoPilot and shoots a voice command such as “Copilot, what is going on with the costs of project ABC this month, contact info (phone number, email), etc.), and business object entity types (like product, salesorder, employee, customer, etc.),
Wunderlich discloses creating a new contact object within the CRM database (par. [0024], [0051] and [0064]-[0065], a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system and a platform that provides Customer Relationship Management, shared database(s), inventory tracking, social media).
Claim 11, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, creating and sending an email (par. [0107], machine learning to e.g. detect situations based on data in Copilot or in other productivity tools (email, calendar), and offers actions and information to the user that typically is relevant in such situations)..
Claim 12, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, obtaining and displaying a report (par. [0054]-[0056], [0109] and [0195], CoPilot user interface on a mobile device, a project manager (PM) at company X opens the CoPilot and shoots a voice command such as “Copilot, what is going on with the costs of project ABC this month, contact info (phone number, email), etc.),
Wunderlich discloses the objects within the CRM database (par. [0024], [0051] and [0064]-[0065], a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system and a platform that provides Customer Relationship Management, shared database(s), inventory tracking, social media, and CRM database).
Claim 13, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, deduplicating the objects within the CRM database (par. [0054]-[0056], and [0108], CoPilot supports multi-modal interactions with its users, and extracting the business semantics and parameter out of this commands and provide user back with relevant information (e.g. deduplicating which similar/same objects. According to the applicant’s specification, par. [0050], deduplicating which similar/same objects) and suggest proper actions to solve the problem, wherein the tile represents a particular customer relationship management (CRM))).
Claim 14, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, automatically capturing and transcribing a recorded conversation to create a transcription
Claim 15, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, logging and segmenting email contact information (par. [0109] and [0195], CoPilot user interface on a mobile device, a project manager (PM) at company X opens the CoPilot and shoots a voice command such as “Copilot, what is going on with the costs of project ABC this month, contact info (phone number, email), etc.), and business object entity types (like product, salesorder, employee, customer, etc.)).
Claim 16, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, importing contact and company information from a spreadsheet by mapping each cell of the spreadsheet (par. [0054]-[0056], [0092] and [0107], integration with standard apps such as email, calendar, contacts, wherein the tile represents a particular customer relationship management (CRM)))
In addition, Wunderlich discloses a CRM property of the objects within the CRM database (par. [0024], [0051] and [0064]-[0065], a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system and a platform that provides Customer Relationship Management, shared database(s), inventory tracking, social media, and CRM database).
Claim 17, A non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is corresponding to the system claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, generating a follow-up email based upon information within the objects (par. [0054]-[0056], [0092] and [0107], integration with standard apps such as email, calendar, contacts, wherein the tile represents a particular customer relationship management (CRM))).
In addition, Wunderlich discloses information within the objects in the CRM database (par. [0024], [0051] and [0064]-[0065], a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system and a platform that provides Customer Relationship Management, shared database(s), inventory tracking, social media, and CRM database).
Claim 19, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, generating and including an image within a blog article (par. [0090], digital assistant represents the system to help to learn complex business processes, just as a team assistant helps to do the expense report properly and explain the reasoning and logic behind the business processes it supports and therefore help him gain deeper understanding).
Claim 20, the combination of Wunderlich and Lange discloses the invention as claimed. In addition, Lange discloses in response to the AI/ML concierge receiving a chat-based command through the chat interface, generating a custom report using information from the objects (par. [0054]-[0056], [0203]-[0207], defining custom dictionaries, wherein the text analysis web service can be extended with (custom) post-processing functionality of its result, wherein the tile represents a particular customer relationship management (CRM))).
In addition, Wunderlich discloses using information from the objects within the CRM database (par. [0024], [0051] and [0064]-[0065], a web-based customer relationship management (CRM) system and a platform that provides Customer Relationship Management, shared database(s), inventory tracking, social media, and CRM database).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loan T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 270-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Thursday-Friday from 10:00 am - 2:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4103. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
03/16/2026
/LOAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2165