DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 7/13/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 are amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, and is also directed to an abstract idea, specifically Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity—managing and organizing information, including managing records and interactions based on predefined rules, and also Mental Processes through evaluating information and applying rules to information.
With regard to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite receiving a request including location information obtained from a matrix-code link, determining resources associated with the location, generating options based on the request and resources, applying approved-topic and restricted-data rules to the generated options, receiving a selection, generating a record, and storing an indication of the record. These limitations amount to collecting, analyzing, organizing, filtering, and storing information according to rules, which are activities that can be performed by a person or through routine information processing. The recitation of an artificial intelligence application/model does not change the character of the abstract idea.
With regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, The additional elements, including the processor, matrix code, AI application/model, physical location, and data store, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level and are used for their ordinary functions of obtaining information, processing information, filtering information, and storing records. The claimed guardrails merely apply rules to restrict data in a generated option and do not recite a specific technological improvement to the AI model or computer functionality.
Finally, with respect to Step 2B, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more than generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea and is ineligible under § 101.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-18 are also directed to same grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes”. The additional elements of the method of claims 2-10; data store of claim 2; spaces devices, equipment and physical location of claim 3; graphical user interface element of claim 4; graphical user interface of claim 5; device of claim 11; physical location of claim 12; and physical location of claim 15 are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 12094600 B2), and further in view of Strange (US 20240427917 A1), and further in view of Biswal et al (US 20180308118 A1), and further in view of Rayman (US 20240412031 A1).
As per claim 1, Bleeker et al discloses:
receiving, by an artificial intelligence (AI) application executing on a processor, a request from a device,
((14) In an embodiment, the present techniques include an artificial intelligence (AI) based method for
improving patient appointment scheduling and inventory management. The method comprises:
receiving, at a server including a natural language processing (NLP) model and one or more processors,
an appointment request from a user; (23) To illustrate, the patient scheduling server 104 may receive an appointment request from a user...The user may verbally indicate their location (e.g., zip code, address, city, state, etc.) and that they want to visit a doctor...the patient scheduling server 104 may utilize an NLP model 112a (trained by the NLP module 112)...The server 104 may then utilize the fulfillment microservice 114 to transmit a query request to the scheduling microservice 116 indicating that the user requests (3) within X miles of the user's location. The “X” may indicate any suitable number of miles and/or any other suitable distance metric);
receiving, by the AI application, input selecting a first option of the plurality of options, ((28): The textual
transcriptions and/or the intent interpretations are forwarded to the conversation engine 117, which
determines a subsequent response that may include asking the user to specify their location, so that the
server 104 may retrieve service provider locations close to the user that offer the vaccination. The
conversation engine 117 may repeatedly perform this response generation until the user terminates the
appointment data stream (e.g., hangs up the phone, disconnects from the website, etc.) and/or until the
user receives and confirms a matching appointment that satisfies their requests);
generating, by the AI application based on the first option, a record for a first resource of the plurality of
resources; and storing, by the Al application, an indication of the record in a data store, (Abstract: The
example method further includes querying a scheduling database to determine a matching
appointment; (29) the virtual assistant 118a may display... the matching appointment on the output
device 102b to the user). [the matching appointment of Bleeker et al represents the record of the
present invention, and by displaying the matching appointment, this shows that the record is stored
(the scheduling database is queried to identify matching appointments as shown in the Abstract), and a
system cannot display a record unless the records are maintained (stored) within the database]).
Bleeker et al does not disclose the following, however, Strange discloses:
the request comprising an indication of a physical location, wherein the indication of the physical location is based on a link encoded in a matrix code..., (Strange (US 20240427917 A1): ([0005] detect, via a user device, a digital image being scanned that comprises machine-readable matrix code that includes embedded data modules, where the embedded data modules comprise encoded data to access a selectable link to a webpage, and display, via a user interface of the user device, the selectable link to the webpage configured to receive authentication credentials. In addition, the at least one processor is further caused to receive, via the user device, a user input selecting the selectable link to the webpage, and display, via the user interface, the webpage configured to receive authentication credentials to access location-specific files associated with a construction site. User authentication credentials are received, via the user device, from a user of the user device, and access is provided, via the user interface, to one or more functionalities related to the location-specific files associated with the construction site; [0090] In some embodiments, some accounts are automatically granted authorization to access worksite information and/or perform certain functionalities for all worksite projects within a predefined region. For instance, a municipal account may be granted access to view all worksite projects within that municipality, where the worksite location is defined by, for example, a zip code, an address, longitude and latitude, etc. that are input by the administrator/subscriber of an account that establishes the worksite. For instance, when a subscriber establishes a worksite and provides location information (e.g., address, longitude and latitude, zip code, etc.), then the corresponding municipality may be automatically granted a certain access level to perform certain functionalities for that worksite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Strange in the systems of Bleeker et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bleeker et al does not disclose the following, however, Biswal et al discloses:
the matrix code displayed at the physical location, (Biswal et al (US 20180308118 A1) [0027] At step 1, a customer visits a merchant's physical store and uses his mobile device 102 to scan a machine-readable code (e.g. a QR code 104). The machine-readable code may be displayed within the merchant's premises. For example, the machine-readable code may be displayed on a computer monitor that is placed near the entrance of the merchant's store);
wherein the link comprises one or more parameters including an identifier of the physical location, ([0027] The machine-readable code can be encoded with one or more of the following information: (i) a unique merchant identity (Merchant ID), (ii) a Merchant Category Code (MCC), (iii) data relating to a location of the merchant's store (Location ID));
determining, by the Al application, a plurality of resources at the physical location based on the one or more parameters of the link encoded in the matrix code, ((25) In any event, the scheduling microservice 116 may query the scheduling database 111 to identify suitable appointments based on the criteria transmitted by the fulfillment microservice 114 as part of the query request), ([0028] The URL provides a link for customers to connect to a merchant server 106; [0031] The merchant server 106 is connected to a database that stores data relating to previous transactions involving the merchant and its customers. The merchant server 106 retrieves data relating to previous transactions between the customer (identified via the unique user identifier(s)) and the merchant from the database. The merchant server 106 is configured to determine a “merchant score” based on the retrieved data relating to previous transactions between the customer and the merchant. The “merchant score” may be further determined based on other factors, such as type of products purchased from the merchant, how long the customer has been a loyal customer, etc. [0042] In an implementation, a particular customer privilege level can be tied to a certain checkout mode. For example, for the highest customer privilege level (“platinum”), the corresponding platinum checkout mode allows platinum members to scan a barcode of a product that they wish to purchase from the merchant. The details encoded on the barcode can be sent to a payment server module to retrieve the price of that particular product and eventually all the products are added to a checkout list).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Biswal et al in the systems of Bleeker et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bleeker et al does not disclose the following, however, Rayman discloses:
generating, by a model of the AI application configured with guardrails defining a plurality of approved topics and a plurality of restricted data types, a plurality of options based on the request and the plurality of resources, respective ones of the options associated with a respective resource at the physical location, wherein a first option of the plurality of options generated by the AI model removes a first restricted data type of the plurality of data types from the first option, (Rayman (US 20240412031 A1) [0012] FIG. 20 is a flowchart illustrating additional processing steps carried out by the system of the present disclosure for generating artificial intelligence (AI) guardrails to improve chatbot prompt generation and results. [0036] In step 136, the system allows the user (e.g., an employee, an individual, a company, etc.) to adjust one or more attributes of the AI guardrail. For example, the user can add, edit, or delete attributes as necessary/desired, and/or the user can assign ranks to each attribute (e.g., to indicate the importance of each attribute. Companies and/or managers can lock access to one or more guardrail attributes, such that only specific types of employees in specific roles can change attributes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Rayman in the systems of Bleeker et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the plurality of options are based on respective records of each of the plurality of resources in
the data store, ((14) a scheduling database to determine a matching appointment that satisfies a
distance threshold, a date threshold, a service threshold, and an inventory threshold based on the
textual transcriptions and the intent interpretations).
As per claim 3, Bleeker et al discloses:
Wherein the plurality of resources comprises spaces, devices, and equipment at the physical location, ((12) In particular, this dynamic updating enables the present techniques to include the most up-to-date information related to medical staff scheduling, inventory, available services, medical equipment).
As per claim 4, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the request is based on selection of a graphical user interface element, ((9) The service location
device 106 may include an input device 106a and an output device 106b. The input device 106a may
include any suitable device or devices for receiving input, such as one or more microphones, one or more
camera, a hardware keyboard, a hardware mouse, a capacitive touch screen, etc. The output device
106b may include any suitable device for conveying output, such as a hardware speaker, a computer
monitor, a touch screen, etc. In some cases, the input device 106a and the output device 106b may be
integrated into a single device, such as a touch screen device that accepts user input and displays
output. In certain aspects, the service location device 106 may be a healthcare service provider device,
and/or any other suitable service provider that may interact with the user (e.g., via the user device 102)
based on the patient appointment scheduling performed by executable instructions stored on the
patient scheduling server 104).
As per claim 5, Bleeker et al discloses:
further comprising prior to receiving the request: outputting, by the AI application, the graphical user
interface element in a chatbot interface, ((27) The conversation engine 117 may generally be an artificial
intelligence (AI) trained conversational algorithm that is configured to interact with a user that is
accessing the contact center 118. When a user calls and/or otherwise accesses the contact center 118
(e.g., online chat).
As per claim 6, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the request comprises a natural language request, ((11) The embodiments described herein
relate to, inter alia, artificial intelligence (AI) based technologies for improving patient appointment
scheduling and inventory management through contact centers. Specifically, the present techniques
enable efficient and accurate patient intake by applying a trained natural language processing (NLP)
model to verbal responses of a user).
As per claim 7, Bleeker et al discloses:
further comprising: generating, by the model based on the request and the record, a natural language
response; and outputting, by the Al application, the natural language response, ((11) generating textual
transcriptions and intent interpretations of the verbal responses, and identifying a matching
appointment for the user that satisfies distance, date, service, and inventory thresholds based on the
textual transcriptions and intent interpretations of the verbal responses).
As per claim 8, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the natural language response comprises an indication of the resource, the record, a date, and
a time, ((11) generating textual transcriptions and intent interpretations of the verbal responses, and
identifying a matching appointment for the user that satisfies distance, date, service, and inventory
thresholds based on the textual transcriptions and intent interpretations of the verbal responses; (25) In
the prior example, the scheduling microservice 116 may query the scheduling database 111 to
determine a service location that has (1) vaccination services for the particular disease, (2) available
inventory of a vaccine for the particular disease, (3) a service professional available to administer the
vaccination at a suitable time (e.g., during the next two weeks), and (4) is within 10 miles of the user's
location).
As per claim 9, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the plurality of options are associated with a respective date and a respective time, ((39)
Additionally, a second appointment at the first service provider location may include a flag indicating
that the second appointment is reserved for COVID-19 vaccinations, and may further indicate that the
second appointment is intended for booster shots, but may be allocated for first/second doses in the
event that no booster shot is scheduled at the time of the second appointment by a cut-off date/time).
As per claim 10, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the record is associated with the date and the time of the first option, ((41) For example, the
scheduling microservice may examine the scheduling data uploaded by service provider location A to
the scheduling database 220 to determine that the service provider location A offers first doses of a
vaccine manufactured by pharmaceutical company A at the date/time specified by the user and
validated based on the COVID-19 vaccination prioritization schedule. The scheduling microservice may
also examine the scheduling data uploaded by service provider location B to the scheduling database
220 to determine that the service provider location B offers first doses of the vaccine manufactured by
pharmaceutical company A at the date/time specified by the user and validated based on the COVID-19
vaccination prioritization schedule. In this case, the scheduling microservice may analyze the locations of
service provider locations A and B to determine which one is closer to the patient. The scheduling
microservice may determine that the service provider location A is closer to the patient's current
location, and as a result, the scheduling microservice may return a matching appointment at service
provider location A for the patient to consider.).
As per claim 11, Bleeker et al does not disclose the following limitations, however Strange discloses:
further comprising prior to receiving the request: receiving, from the device, an indication of a link,
(Strange (US 20240427917 A1): ([0005] Additionally, disclosed herein is a computing system for
permission-based cloud storage and file sharing. The system includes at least one processor, a
communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and a memory device
storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to, at least in part,
detect, via a user device, a digital image being scanned that comprises machine-readable matrix code
that includes embedded data modules, where the embedded data modules comprise encoded data to
access a selectable link to a webpage, and display, via a user interface of the user device);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Strange in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12, Bleeker et al does not disclose the following limitations, however Strange discloses:
wherein the link is encoded in a matrix code displayed at the physical location, (Strange (US
20240427917 A1): [0004] wherein the at least one worksite location comprises a construction site, and
to determine that a user is attempting to access, based on the user scanning a digital image via a user
device and providing authentication credentials via the user device, the location-specific files associated
with the at least one worksite location; [0005] Additionally, disclosed herein is a computing system for
permission-based cloud storage and file sharing. The system includes at least one processor, a
communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and a memory device
storing executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to, at least in part,
detect, via a user device, a digital image being scanned that comprises machine-readable matrix code
that includes embedded data modules, where the embedded data modules comprise encoded data to
access a selectable link to a webpage, and display, via a user interface of the user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Strange in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 13, Bleeker et al does not disclose the following limitations, however Strange discloses:
wherein the link comprises, as a parameter, an indication of the physical location, (Strange: [0005] and
display, via a user interface of the user device, the selectable link to the webpage configured to receive
authentication credentials. In addition, the at least one processor is further caused to receive, via the
user device, a user input selecting the selectable link to the webpage, and display, via the user interface,
the webpage configured to receive authentication credentials to access location-specific files associated
with a construction site).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Strange in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 14, Bleeker et al does not disclose the following limitations, however Strange discloses:
wherein the link further comprises, as another parameter, an indication of the first resource, (Strange:
[0005] and display, via a user interface of the user device, the selectable link to the webpage configured
to receive authentication credentials. In addition, the at least one processor is further caused to receive,
via the user device, a user input selecting the selectable link to the webpage, and display, via the user
interface, the webpage configured to receive authentication credentials to access location-specific files
associated with a construction site).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Strange in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per independent claim 19, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent
claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as disclosed for independent claim 1.
As per independent claim 20, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent
claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as disclosed for independent claim 1.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 12094600 B2), and further in view of Strange (US 20240427917 A1), and further in view of Biswal et al (US 20180308118 A1), and further in view of Rayman (US 20240412031 A1), and further in view of Eirinberg (US 11829834 B2).
As per claim 15, Bleeker et al does not disclose: wherein the matrix code is one of a plurality of matrix
codes displayed at the physical location.
However, Eirinberg discloses: (12) a quick-response (QR) code can be physically placed at the
location Once the QR code is decoded by the messaging application, the link associated with the QR
code can then be accessed and displayed; (121) the communication components 1036 may
include...optical reader components (e.g., an optical sensor to detect one-dimensional bar codes such as
Universal Product Code (UPC) bar code, multi-dimensional bar codes such as Quick Response (QR) code,
Aztec code, Data Matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Eirinberg in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 16, Bleeker et al does not disclose:
wherein each matrix code comprises, as a parameter, an indication of one or more of the plurality of
resources.
However, Eirinberg discloses: (14) As an example, a QR code can be placed on a table in a restaurant.
Many patrons can arrive at the restaurant and activate cameras on their respective devices to scan the
QR code to retrieve a menu or profile page associated with the restaurant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Eirinberg in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 17, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the link is directed to a mobile application or a web resource, ([0005] where the embedded data modules comprise encoded data to access a selectable link to a webpage, and display, via a user interface of the user device; [0046] The integrated software applications can include Android, or other operating system compatible with personal computing devices. Programs/applications can also include
applications (e.g., a mobile application) considered web-browser applications that typically provide a
graphical user interface (GUI) that can be displayed (e.g., via a user interface)).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleeker et al (US 12094600 B2), and further in view of Strange (US 20240427917 A1), and further in view of Biswal et al (US 20180308118 A1), and further in view of Rayman (US 20240412031 A1), and further in view of Eirinberg (US 11829834 B2), and further in view of Shastry et al (US 12229313 B1).
As per claim 18, Bleeker et al discloses:
wherein the link is directed to a web resource, ([0005] where the embedded data modules comprise
encoded data to access a selectable link to a webpage, and display, via a user interface of the user
device; [0046] The integrated software applications can include an operating system, such as Linux®,
UNIX®, Windows®, macOS®, iOS, Android, or other operating system compatible with personal
computing devices. Programs/applications can also include applications (e.g., a mobile application)
considered web-browser applications that typically provide a graphical user interface (GUI) that can be
displayed (e.g., via a user interface)).
Bleeker does not disclose the following, limitations, however, Rayman discloses:
wherein the guardrails comprise a configurable set of enforcement mechanisms applied to the model, (Rayman (US 20240412031 A1): [0035] FIG. 20 is a flowchart illustrating additional processing steps, indicated generally at 130, carried out by the system of the present disclosure for generating artificial intelligence (AI) guardrails to improve chatbot prompt generation and results. In step 132, the system generates an AI guardrail, which is an additional set (beyond the prompt optimization components discussed above in connection with FIGS. 1-19) of chatbot prompt optimization attributes that are tailored to a specific topic (such as governance, corporate roles, branding, performance, or other parameters) and which are utilized to improve the accuracy and reliability of output generated by a chatbot platform)
the enforcement mechanisms comprising: (i) restricting generation of responses to the plurality of approved topics associated with reservation and management of the plurality of resources, (Rayman (US 20240412031 A1): [0035] the system generates an AI guardrail, which is an additional set (beyond the prompt optimization components discussed above in connection with FIGS. 1-19) of chatbot prompt optimization attributes that are tailored to a specific topic).
(ii) restricting generation of responses to the plurality of approved data types including structured reservation fields, (Rayman (US 20240412031 A1): [0034] FIG. 19 is a diagram illustrating a pre-trained ethics model in accordance with the system of the present disclosure. As can be seen, the ethics model filters out bad advice, harmful information, improper sharing, data corruption, lying, non-compliance, and ignoring regulations. Additionally, the ethics model incorporates ethics, regulatory filters, rule compliance, brand integrity, and proper permissions);
and preventing generation of responses including the plurality of restricted data types (Rayman (US 20240412031 A1): [0034] FIG. 19 is a diagram illustrating a pre-trained ethics model in accordance with the system of the present disclosure. As can be seen, the ethics model filters out bad advice, harmful information, improper sharing, data corruption, lying, non-compliance, and ignoring regulations. Additionally, the ethics model incorporates ethics, regulatory filters, rule compliance, brand integrity, and proper permissions.;
(iii) applying one or more output-filtering rules to candidate responses generated by the model to suppress or modify candidate responses that fail the output-filtering rules, (Rayman (US 20240412031 A1): [0034] FIG. 19 is a diagram illustrating a pre-trained ethics model in accordance with the system of the present disclosure. As can be seen, the ethics model filters out bad advice, harmful information, improper sharing, data corruption, lying, non-compliance, and ignoring regulations. Additionally, the ethics model incorporates ethics, regulatory filters, rule compliance, brand integrity, and proper permissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Rayman in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since
the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element
merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bleeker does not disclose the following, however, Shastry et al discloses:
(iv) requiring candidate options generated by the model to satisfy at least one confidence or relevance threshold prior to presentation as the plurality of options; and (v) preventing generation or storage of the record unless the selected option satisfies one or more reservation eligibility constraints defined in a configuration of the model, (Shastry et al (US 12229313 B1) (42) The third machine learning model 334 can include, for example, a text classifier, a transformer, a large language model (LLM), and/or the like. Although not shown in FIG. 3, in some instances, the video data 302 (e.g., the plurality of video frames and/or the audio data) can be provided as input to the attribute analyzer 314 to determine the attribute indication based on, for example, speech tone, speech volume, speech cadence, gestures (e.g., officer hand motion captured in the video data 302), and/or the like. In some implementations, the third machine learning model 334 can determine a confidence score associated with an attribute(s) for a segment and can generate the attribute indication(s) based on the confidence score being above a predetermined threshold value. In some instances, the user can define the threshold value (e.g., via the user interface 340, described herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
include the above limitations as taught by Shastry et al in the cloud storage systems of Bleeker et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite mental processes or methods of organizing human activity, but instead expressly require a specific AI configuration that cannot practically be performed by the human mind. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of an AI application, processor, and AI model does not, by itself, remove the claimed subject matter from the mental-process grouping. The claimed steps of receiving and evaluating information, identifying resources, applying rules concerning approved and restricted information, selecting an option, and generating and storing a record correspond to processes of evaluating information and applying rules that can be performed conceptually in the human mind. The claimed AI configuration merely automates these activities and does not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the AI system or computer technology. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process under Step 2A, Prong One.
In addition, Applicant argues that the claims recite specific technical configurations, including a parameterized link encoded in a matrix code, location-based resource determination, AI guardrails, output filtering, validation thresholds, and conditional record creation and storage, and therefore are not mental processes or methods of organizing human activity. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations merely specify the manner in which the abstract activity is implemented using an AI system. The underlying steps remain directed to receiving and evaluating information, identifying resources, applying predefined restrictions and rules, selecting an option, and creating and storing a record based on the selected option. The recitation of a matrix code, AI model, guardrails, filtering rules, or thresholds does not, by itself, demonstrate an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Rather, these components are used as tools to perform the claimed information-management activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Applicant argues that the claims address a specific technical problem, provide a specific technical solution that improves system operation, are analogous to Example 47 (anomaly detection), and satisfy the Desjardins framework. This argument is not persuasive. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the AI model or computer technology. Rather, the claimed matrix code, parameterized link, AI guardrails, filtering, thresholds, and conditional record generation merely apply the abstract information-management process using conventional computing and AI techniques. Unlike Example 47, the claims do not recite a specific improvement in the functioning of a technological system, such as an improved anomaly-detection technique. Accordingly, the claims are not analogous to Example 47 and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2B, the claim combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional and that the Office has provided no evidence that the claimed features are conventional. However, this argument is not persuasive. The Office Action identifies the claimed elements and explains that the use of a processor, AI application/model, matrix code, parameterized link, guardrails, filtering, thresholds, and data storage represents the use of their known functions in a conventional manner. The mere combination of known components does not, without more, establish an inventive concept. Accordingly, considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the claim remains ineligible under Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments, see response/arguments, filed 7/13/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of pending claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown above in the Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
September 9, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights