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
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, 8-9, 11-12, and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,762,929. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same subject matter in similar claim language. See chart below.
Instant claim
‘940 patent claim
‘929 patent claim
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
6
2
8
2
1
9
1
5
11
9
8
12
9
8
13
9
16
8
17
16
15
18
17
15
19
16
19
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 information related to offerings associated with an online page; identifying intents based on the information, at least a portion of the intents corresponding to at least one of headers or menu items of the online page; and updating the intents based on supplemental information accessible via a hyperlink associated with the online page. Identifying information related to offerings and identifying intents are evaluating and mental processes, and updating intents is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites an additional element of storing the intents in an intent data repository, which is 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. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media, 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 receiving, from a user device, a query, and receiving a query is recited broadly and amounts to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which is a routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II; matching the query to an intent of the intents, and matching a query to an intent is evaluating and a mental process; and transmitting, to the user device, an output associated with the intent, and transmitting an output is recited broadly and amounts to sending and data across a network per specification paragraphs 0019 and 0029 and figure 1 network 114, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 9 and 19 each recites wherein identifying information related to offerings associated with the online page comprises using a parser configured to identify the headers or the menu items of the online page, and parsing headers is parsing data and 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. 102
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leaman et al (US 20220293107), hereafter Leaman.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 17, Leaman teaches:
identifying information related to offerings associated with an online page (paragraph 0088 figure 1, identify information related to topics, core topics in an online page 102, paragraph 0086 online page 102 is a web page);
identifying intents based on the information, at least a portion of the intents corresponding to at least one of headers or menu items of the online page (paragraph 0088 core topics used to identify/develop sub-topics (intents) related to general topic of the page, paragraphs 0216, 0225, 0229 identify support page content from headers);
updating the intents based on supplemental information accessible via a hyperlink associated with the online page (paragraph 0088 user follows hyperlink for sub-topic to get more information and update the user’s intents on the page); and
storing the intents in an intent data repository (paragraph 0090 figure 2, topics, clusters in datastore 132).
With respect to claim 11, Leaman teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media (paragraph 0016 non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions).
With respect to claim 17, Leaman teaches one or more memories and one or more processors (paragraph 0013 system of inventon may include one or more memories and one or more processors).
With respect to claim 7, Leaman teaches updating the intents based on an industry or a category associated with the online page (paragraph 0334 changing services based on changes to core objects (category/industry) in a business).
With respect to claim 8 and 18, Leaman teaches:
receiving, from a user device, a query (paragraph 0200 receive question from a customer);
matching the query to an intent of the intents (paragraph 0200 match question to a service); and
transmitting, to the user device, an output associated with the intent (paragraph 0200 output a document or link for the services question).
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Leaman teaches:
accessing the additional online page (paragraph 0088 access additional page link);
identifying supplemental information related to offerings associated with the additional online page (paragraph 0088 identify other information); 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 (paragraph 0088 identify hyperlinked sub-topic, primary online content object (header)).
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 2-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leaman in view of Zotto et al (20220414341), hereafter Zotto.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 are addressed by Leaman above. Leaman does not teach:
transmitting the intents to a first user device; and
receiving, from the first user device, an acceptance of the intents.
Zotto teaches these things:
transmitting the intents to a first user device (paragraph 0033 transmitting intents to a source, paragraph 00033 source can be a user device); and
receiving, from the first user device, an acceptance of the intents (paragraph 0038 allow intents by the source).
It would have been obvious to have combined the function of accepting intents in Zotto with the techniques for identifying intents in Leaman to review and ensure the accuracy of the intents.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, all the limitations in claims 1-2 and 11-12 are addressed by Leaman and Zotto above. Leaman does not teach:
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.
Zotto teaches these things:
transmitting the intents to a second user device (paragraphs 0041-0043 transmitting intents to source); and
receiving, from the second user device, a workflow for at least one intent of the intents (paragraph 0041-0043 source adding intent adds additional information about intent for example metadata about the intent, paragraphs 0042-00433 ensure resources for fulfilling the intent (workflow for the intent)).
It would have been obvious to have combined the function of receiving a workflow for an intent in Zotto with the techniques for identifying intents in Leaman as Leaman also discusses workflows (paragraph 0214) and to give more information to the user to realize a better experience with the intent.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 are addressed by Leaman above. Leaman does not teach:
transmitting the intents to a user device;
receiving, from the user device, a modification of the intents; and
renaming, based on the modification, at least one intent of the intents.
Zotto teaches these things:
transmitting the intents to a user device (paragraphs 0058, 0063 transmitting intent to source, source attempts to add he intent to the repository);
receiving, from the user device, a modification of the intents (paragraph 0063 receive modification of intents after failure to add to repository); and
renaming, based on the modification, at least one intent of the intents (paragraph 0063 updating the intent based on the modification)
It would have been obvious to have combined the function of renaming an intent in Zotto with the techniques for identifying intents in Leaman to ensure intents are not duplicative and thus give less of an experience to the user.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 are addressed by Leaman above. Leaman teaches intents for customer needs/support are found in topic headings of online content (paragraph 0216) but Leaman does not teach:
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.
Zotto teaches these things:
transmitting the intents to a user device (paragraphs 0058, 0063 transmitting intent to source, source attempts to add he intent to the repository); 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 (paragraph 0063 rejection of an intent at the repository).
It would have been obvious to have combined the function of rejecting an intent in Zotto with the techniques for identifying intents in Leaman to ensure intents are not duplicative and thus give less of an experience to the user.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 are addressed by Leaman above. Leaman does not teach:
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.
Zotto teaches these things:
transmitting the intents to a user device (paragraph 0033 transmitting intents to a source, paragraph 00033 source can be a user device); and
receiving, from the user device, an acceptance of a single intent of the intents (paragraph 0038 allow intents by the source) and a workflow for the single intent (paragraph 0041-0043 source adding intent adds additional information about intent for example metadata about the intent, paragraphs 0042-00433 ensure resources for fulfilling the intent (workflow for the intent).
It would have been obvious to have combined accepting an intent and receiving a workflow for an intent in Zotto with the techniques for identifying intents in Leaman as Leaman also discusses workflows (paragraph 0214) and to give more information to the user to realize a better experience with the intent.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leaman in view of Gupta et al (20190377588), hereafter Gupta.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, all the limitations in claims 1 and 11 are addressed by Leaman above. Leaman does not teach wherein identifying information related to offerings associated with the online page comprises using a parser configured to identify the headers or the menu items of the online page. Gupta teaches this in parsing documentation section headings related to an entity objects and parsing content under the section headings (paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to have combined this function of parsing headers of a page in Gupta with the techniques for identifying intents in Leaman to gain additional useful information on an entity.
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 2/19/26