Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 5/26/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 8-9, 11, 17, and 19-20, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amended paragraphs 0068, 0082, and 0097 to the specification to correct minor typographical and/or grammatical errors.
Obviousness Type 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, 16, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,292,940 and claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-9, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,762,929 in view of Sayko (US 10,313,524), Decker et al (US 20120166414) hereafter Decker, and Mustafi et al (US 20230195765), hereafter Mustafi. See chart below. Each of the ‘940 and ‘929 patents teach identifying intents, at least a portion of the intents corresponding to the at least one of the headers or the menu items of the online page; updating the intents based on supplemental information accessible via a hyperlink associated with the online page; storing the intents in an intent data repository; and receiving, from a user device, a natural language query. Decker teaches parsing HTML code of a webpage to identify menu items as subjects (paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to have combined Decker’s parsing of HTML code with the techniques of the ‘940 and ‘929 patents to provide another method for the patents to gather data for subjects of users’ inquiries. Mustafi teaches receiving a query in a natural language and matching an intent to said query (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to have combined Mustafi’s matching of intents to a natural language query with Decker’s parsing of HTML code and the techniques of the ‘940 and ‘929 patents to better gauge intent for a user’s question/query. Sayko teaches a contact center establishing a connection between a user device and an agent device (column 10 lines 45-59). It would have been obvious to have combined Mustafi’s matching of intents to a natural language query with Decker’s parsing of HTML code and the techniques of the ‘940 and ‘929 patents to provide better assistance to a user.
Instant Application Claim, Sayko, Mustafi, Decker
‘940 patent
‘929 patent
1
1, 2
1
2
1
3
2
6
2
9
1, 4
1, 3
11
9, 12
8
12
9
8
13
9
16
8
17
16, 20
15
19
19
17
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 each recites identifying, within code of an online page, at least one of headers or menu items of the online page based on formatting of the at least one of the headers or the menu items indicated in the code; identifying intents, at least a portion of the intents corresponding to the at least one of the headers or the menu items of the online page; updating the intents based on supplemental information accessible via a hyperlink associated with the online page; and matching, by an intent matching engine, the natural language query to an intent of the intents stored in the intent data repository. Identifying headers or menu items in code, identifying intents corresponding to headers or menu items, and matching a natural language query to an intent each involve evaluating and are mental processes, and updating an intent is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of storing the intents in an intent data repository, which is insignificant extra-solution activity; receiving, from a user device, a natural language query, a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and establishing, by a contact center system, a connection between the user device and an agent device selected based on the intent matched to the natural language query, and establishing a connection between two points for communication is also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 11 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media and claim 17 recites one or more memories and one or more processors, which are each generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0013 describes how an employee of a contact center may manually generate intents for the center but “may fail to manually identify some intents, as there may be hundreds or thousands of different intents for which processing could potentially be streamlined. Thus, automatic generation of intents for the entity using the contact center may be desirable.” Paragraph 0014-0017 describe techniques of the invention to address this drawback, many of which are not claimed. Also, the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the saving step is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Receiving a query and establishing a connection for communication are both recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0029 and 0035-0036 and figure 1 network 114, which is also routine and conventional activity per the list of routine and conventional activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media and one or more memories and one or more processors are each still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2 and 12 each recites transmitting the intents to a first user device; and receiving, from the first user device, an acceptance of the intents, and transmitting intents and receiving an acceptance of intents are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 3 and 13 each recites transmitting the intents to a second user device; and receiving, from the second user device, a workflow for at least one intent of the intents, and transmitting intents and receiving a workflow for an intent are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 4 and 14 each recites transmitting the intents to a user device; receiving, from the user device, a modification of the intents, and transmitting intents and receiving a modification of the intents are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; and renaming, based on the modification, at least one intent of the intents, and renaming an intent is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 5 and 15 each recites transmitting the intents to a user device; and receiving, from the user device, a rejection of at least one intent of the intents, wherein the at least one intent corresponds to a header or a menu item that is not a valid intent, and transmitting intents and receiving a rejection of an intent are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 6 and 16 each recites transmitting the intents to a user device; and receiving, from the user device, an acceptance of a single intent of the intents and a workflow for the single intent, and transmitting intents and receiving an acceptance and a workflow of an intent are each recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claim 7 recites updating the intents based on an industry or a category associated with the online page, and updating an intents recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Claims 8 and 18 each recites identifying, based on the intent matched to the natural language query, a workflow associated with the intent, and identifying a workflow is evaluating and a mental process; and executing the workflow associated with the intent to process the natural language query, and executing a workflow is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 9 and 19 each recites determining, based on a bot instruction file for the online page, that automated access to at least a part of the online page is permitted, wherein the at least one of the headers or the menu items are identified within the at least the part of the online page, and determining that access is permitted is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 10 and 20 each recites accessing the additional online page, and accessing data is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; identifying supplemental information related to offerings associated with the additional online page; and identifying sub-intents based on the supplemental information, at least a portion of the sub-intents corresponding to at least one of headers or menu items of the additional online page, and identifying supplemental information and sub-intents are each evaluating and mental processes.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Decker et al (US 20120166414), hereafter Decker, in view of Mustafi et al (US 20230195765), hereafter Mustafi, and in further view of Sayko (US 10,313,524).
With respect to clams 1, 11, and 17, Decker teaches:
identifying, within code of an online page, at least one of headers or menu items of the online page based on formatting of the at least one of the headers or the menu items indicated in the code (paragraph 0037 parsing HTML code of a webpage to identify menu items);
identifying intents, at least a portion of the intents corresponding to the at least one of the headers or the menu items of the online page (paragraph 0038 identify subjects corresponding to data removed/parsed from the HTML code);
updating the intents based on supplemental information accessible via a hyperlink associated with the online page (paragraph 0038 subjects updated with information from related articles linked as external websites, for example paragraph 0055 figure 3A); and
storing the intents in an intent data repository (paragraph 0049database of HTML documents with subject matter on subjects are stored, paragraph 0008 topic cluster database storing topics (subjects), paragraph 0037 subjects stored in a queue, paragraph 0046 subject matter stored in a working index by Index/Category Module 106).
Decker does not teach:
receiving, from a user device, a natural language query;
matching, by an intent matching engine, the natural language query to an intent of the intents stored in the intent data repository; and
establishing, by a contact center system, a connection between the user device and an agent device selected based on the intent matched to the natural language query.
Mustafi teaches:
receiving, from a user device, a natural language query (paragraph 0007 receiving a query in a natural language); and
matching, by an intent matching engine, the natural language query to an intent of the intents stored in the intent data repository (paragraph 0007 matching an intent to a received natura language query).
It would have been obvious to have combined the identifying and updating functions for menu items and intents in Decker with the natural language query and matching functions in Mustafi to gather information on intents for provision to a user.
The combination of Decker and Mustafi does not teach establishing, by a contact center system, a connection between the user device and an agent device selected based on the intent matched to the natural language query.
Sayko teaches establishing, by a contact center system, a connection between the user device and an agent device selected based on the intent matched to the natural language query (column 10 lines 45-59, contact center establishing a connection between a user device and an agent device).
It would have been obvious to have combined the identifying and updating functions for menu items and intents in Decker with the natural language query and matching functions in Mustafi and with the function of establishing a connection between devices in Sayko to foment a better match for a user seeking information on a subject/intent.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections for Obviousness Type Double Patenting of claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-12, and 17-19 claims 1-2, 9, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,292,940, and claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-19 over claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,762,929, Examiner notes Applicant’s request on pages 9-10 that these rejections be held in abeyance. Examiner further notes the updated rejections above accounting for the instant amendments to these claims. Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 10-11 Applicant asserts the limitations "matching, by an intent matching engine, the natural language query to an intent of the intents stored in the intent data repository," and "establishing, by a contact center system, a connection between the user device and an agent device selected based on the intent matched to the natural language query" are not mental processes. Examiner agrees that "establishing, by a contact center system, a connection between the user device and an agent device selected based on the intent matched to the natural language query" is routine and conventional activity per the rejections above. “Matching, by an intent matching engine, the natural language query to an intent of the intents stored in the intent data repository," is recited broadly without details showing specifically how the invention performs the matching and a BRI of matching includes evaluating the query and an intent, which is a mental process. On pages 11-13 of his Remarks Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo Eligibility Analysis and specification paragraph 0013 describing the problem that contact center employees may manually generate some intents but fail to identify other intents. Applicant asserts “Claim 1 as amended addresses this problem by reciting a specific technique for automatically generating a set of intents for a contact center system that an employee of an entity using the contact center system would not perform.” Examiner notes the clams do not recite a contact center and, while a contact center employee may not glean items from the code of a webpage, said employee may glean items displayed on the webpage and the webpage will display the items that it is coded to display. Examiner also notes the recited technique is not specific with regard to (1) how intents are identified “corresponding to” headers or menu items identified from the code of the webpage, (2) how intents are updated using supplemental information, or (3) how intents are matched to a natural language query. The claims do not recite an improvement in a computer technology or the technology of identifying intents per MPEP 210-6.05(a). Furthermore, these mental process steps of identifying and matching merely use a computer as a tool.
On pages 13-14 of his Remarks Applicant discusses Step 2B and notes MPEP 2106.05 states “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” Examiner notes in the rejection above that the additional elements are each routine and conventional activities. The invention as a whole identifies and updates intents and then matches them to a natural language query. Storing the intents does not limit the identification or updating of the intents and receiving a natural language query or establishing a connection between a user device and an agent device does not limit the matching of an intent to said query but only generally links these steps to a generic computer environment per MPEP 2106.05(A) examples ii, iii, and iv under “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 8/15/26
Prosecution Insights