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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and does not include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 and October 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Step 1
4. Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1-10) and a machine (claims 11-20). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
5. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
A method comprising: receiving, from [[a conversation simulator running on a mobile client device and at an artificial intelligence engine]], a first conversational response from a user of [[the mobile client device]] regarding an action to be taken;
making a first determination regarding the action to be taken based on a context of [[the artificial intelligence engine]];
receiving, at [[the artificial intelligence engine and from the conversation simulator running on the mobile client device]], a second conversational response from the user of [[the mobile client device]] regarding the action to be taken;
adding the conversational response from the user to the context of [[the artificial intelligence engine]] to create a first updated context;
making a second determination regarding the action based on the first updated context;
communicating with [[a third-party system]] through a series of one or more messages to complete the action based on the second determination;
determining that the action is associated with an existing record;
determining a first purpose for the action based on the first updated context;
proposing the first purpose for the action to the user [[via the conversation simulator]];
receiving a purpose response that the first purpose is incorrect [[via the conversation simulator]];
adding the purpose response to the first updated context to form a second updated context;
determining a second purpose for the action based on the second updated context;
proposing the second purpose for the action to the user [[via the conversation simulator]];
receiving an affirmative response that the second purpose is correct [[via the conversation simulator];
updating the existing record to include the second purpose;
determining an event associated with the action based on the context;
determining that the action satisfies a policy based on the context;
creating a record associating the second updated context and the action; and
mapping the action to the event within a report associated with the event.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and/or commercial interactions (e.g., facilitating an interaction with a user regarding a transaction).
Step 2A, Prong 2
6. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed does not include limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Besides reciting the abstract idea, the limitations of claim 1 also recite generic computer components (e.g., a conversation simulator running on a mobile client device and at an artificial intelligence engine, and a third-party system). In particular, the recited features of the abstract idea are merely being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In other words, the additional elements are simply used as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the following limitation:
presenting the first determination to the user via the conversation simulator.
This limitation merely states that the system outputs/presents the first determination to the user. However, the claim does not provide significant technical detail regarding how the first determination is displayed. Therefore, this limitation amounts to no more than merely outputting/displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2016.05(g): OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, claim 1 does not include any limitations or additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As a result, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
7. Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements of claim 1 are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the recited additional elements (e.g., a conversation simulator running on a mobile client device and at an artificial intelligence engine, and a third-party system), do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality such that they are being used in the claims to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
Additionally, the following limitation identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity (merely outputting/displaying data) has been revaluated in Step 2B:
presenting the first determination to the user via the conversation simulator.
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(d), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). In view of this requirement set forth by Berkheimer, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because the courts have found the concept of merely outputting/displaying data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d): OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Thus, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional Independent Claims
8. Independent claim 11 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claim 11 recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in claim 1. However, the primary difference between claims 11 and 1 is that claim 11 is drafted as a system rather than as a method. Similarly, as described above regarding claim 1, claim 11 recites generic computer components (e.g., an assistant server running a logic layer providing an artificial intelligence engine, conversation simulator, a mobile client device, and a third-party system) that are simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, since the same analysis should be used for claims 1 and 11, claim 11 is not patent eligible (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Dependent Claims
9. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons described below:
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 simply further refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., sending contact information including one or more accounts associated with the user, and communicating with the third party using the contact information) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1. Additionally, merely stating that messages are “encoded” and “decoded” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not provide any technical detail regarding how the messages are encoded/decoded. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic encoding/decoding technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 4 and 17 simply further refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., selecting an action option and communicating the selection to the third-party) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1.
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 simply further refine the abstract idea because they recite process steps (e.g., selecting a component to facilitate performance of the action) that fall under the category of organizing human activity, as described above regarding claim 1. Additionally, simply stating that that the components include a conversation simulator, an enterprise system having enterprise data, and an action management system amount to no more than merely applying generic computer components to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 7 and 14 simply provide further definition to the process of selecting a component for facilitating the action option recited in claims 5 and 13. Simply stating that the process is based on a level of sensitivity of information that needs to be provided to facilitate performance of the action does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the conditions under which a particular component may be selected.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 simply provide further definition to the “context” recited in claims 1 and 11. Simply stating that the context includes enterprise data including one of email entries, calendar entries, and customer relationship management data does not provide an indication of an improvement to any technology or technological field. Rather, this merely defines the conditions under which a particular component may be selected.
Claims 10 and 20 simply recite process steps for generating a training data set and training a machine learning model using the training data set. However, the claims do not provide significant technical detail regarding how the dataset is generated and/or how the machine learning model is trained. Therefore, such limitations amount to no more than merely applying generic machine learning technology to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application) that results in the claims being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McGann (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20160189558): The prior art reference which is most closely related to the claims of the instant application is McGann. McGann discloses a process for simulating an interaction between a customer and an agent of a customer contact center. The simulation may help the agent better determine the intent of the interaction and assess a confidence of its deduction prior to engaging in the interaction. However, McGann does not disclose the specific series of process steps recited in the independent claims of the instant application.
Bansal (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20030120593): Bansal discloses a system that is capable of delivering multiple services to various users involved in the processing of credit card transactions.
Kornblit (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20190354557): Kornblit discloses a fully automated intelligent system and method for interactive online communication. The system receives and analyzes a customer query, and provides an answer to the customer. The system learns on an ongoing basis by requesting assistance from live agents when it is not confident about an answer to the query, and then training itself with that new answer.
Wu (U.S. Patent No. 10733496): Wu discloses a system and method for providing a conversation session with an artificial intelligence entity in a user interface.
Walia (U.S. Patent No. 10579834): Walia discloses systems and method that generally relate to natural language customer interactions with customer support representatives of an enterprise, and more particularly to a method and apparatus for facilitating customer intent prediction from natural language interactions of customers for improving customer interaction experiences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D NEWLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. 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.
/WILLIAM D NEWLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights