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
This communication is in response to application filed on 4/28/2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites ”… and/or …” Examiner is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the limitation. Is it Applicant's intent that the chatbots are generating response using models based on artificial intelligence, machine learning or both.
Claims 14 and 18 recited similar limitation and same rejection applies.
Claim 1: The term "some" in line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "some" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1: The term "fewer" in line 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "fewer" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 13 and 17: The term "some" in claims 13 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "some" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 13 and 17: The term "fewer" in claims 13 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "fewer" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4: The term "selectively" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "selectively" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 16, and 20: The term "selectively" in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "selectively" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "responses generated the chatbots" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "responses generated the chatbots" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "responses generated the chatbots" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim(s) and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 13 line 1 recites “…computer-readable media storing instructions that are operable…”, but Applicant’s Specification does not define the term "computer readable medium". Pending claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 3 19 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is non-limiting (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
Dependent claims 14-16, which are dependent from Claim 13, does not recite nor impart any further limitations that would bring the invention in conformance with 35 U.S.C. §101 as patentable subject matter.
The Examiner suggests that a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentqv Galleiy, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190199658 A1) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Thiyagarajan et al. (US 20210377391 A1) hereinafter “Thiyagarajan”.
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a method performed by one or more computers (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by the one or more computers, a text input from a user that is entered at a user device of the user (Kim [79-82], receiving by a machine learning model an input consisting of a question);
identifying, by the one or more computers, multiple chatbots that the user is authorized to access, wherein at least some of the multiple chatbots are configured to answer questions about data from different data sources (Kim [79-82], discloses wherein among the multiple chatbots, the relay chatbot can transfer the question message to each of the selected chatbots from the group to answer/respond from their associated resources);
selecting, by the one or more computers, a subset of the multiple chatbots based on the text input from the user, wherein the subset comprises at least one of the multiple chatbots and fewer than all of the multiple chatbots (Kim [75-81], discloses wherein relay chatbot may select two or more chatbots based on scores of processing a question message by the respective chatbots by using the machine learning model, transmit the question message to the selected two or more chatbots, and select an answer to be transferred to the user device based on rankings of answers to the question message received from the selected two or more chatbots);
providing, by the one or more computers, the text input from the user to each of the chatbots in the subset to generate a response to the text input from each of the chatbots in the subset (Kim [78-82], discloses wherein the relay may select few or a subset of the chatbots based on the input question from the multiple chatbots); and
Kim is silent on providing, by the one or more computers, an output response to the text input from the user for presentation at the user device, wherein the response is based on one or more of the responses generated the chatbots in the subset.
However, Thiyagarajan [34, 44-45, 51-53] discloses a system for customer service guided digital assistant/agent, wherein the agent container can present the chatbot response on a display in a chat including the chat session messaging sequence on the user device, including wherein the agent assist tool that displays suggested responses to an outstanding customer chat message as the last step before sending to the customer and posting to chat window field).
Kim and Thiyagarajan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of communicating with chatbot(s). before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Thiyagarajan before him or her, to modify the relay chatbot linked to multiple chatbots system of Kim to include the agent guided digital assistant display of the generated response system of Thiyagarajan with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of outputting agent/chatbot generated response on the display of the user device. This method of improving the chatbot system of Kim was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Thiyagarajan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim with Thiyagarajan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the text input comprises receiving the text input over a communication network at a server system (Kim [72-73, 79-81] discloses input of a text/question message);
wherein each of the multiple chatbots are configured to generate responses using one or more artificial intelligence and/or machine learning models (Kim [72-73, 73-82], discloses utilization of machine learning and hybrid models for generating response/answers); and
wherein providing the output response to the text input comprises providing the output response from the server system over the communication network to the user device (Kim [79-83], discloses messenger server transmit the received second answer to the user device). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 3, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the text input comprises receiving the text input through an application programming interface (API) (Kim [65-66], discloses wherein a device of the manager with a user interface that enables the manager to manage a relay chatbot). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 4, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the text input from the user is entered through a messaging interface or a chatbot interface, and wherein the messaging interface or a chatbot interface is configured to selectively provide access to each of the multiple chatbots without the user selecting or specifying which chatbot to interact with (Kim [75-81], discloses wherein relay chatbot may select two or more chatbots based on scores of processing a question message by the respective chatbots by using the machine learning model, transmit the question message to the selected two or more chatbots, and select an answer to be transferred to the user device based on rankings of answers to the question message received from the selected two or more chatbots). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more computers are configured to automatically select, for each of multiple user prompts, which of the multiple chatbots to use to respond to the user prompt (Kim [79-82], discloses wherein among the multiple chatbots, the relay chatbot can transfer the question message to each of the selected chatbots from the group to answer/respond from their associated resources). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 6, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising receiving a series of user prompts in a conversation, and varying which of the multiple chatbots is used to answer the respective user prompts based on content of the respective user prompts (Kim [10-12, 45-47], discloses wherein a method for deriving an answer which is most appropriate for a user's intent of question from among answers derived by multiple chatbots). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 7, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selected subset of the multiple chatbots comprises at least two chatbots (Kim [10-14], utilizes multiple chatbots); and
wherein the output response is generated based on the responses of each of the at least two chatbots (Kim [10-14, 45-47], discloses wherein response/answer is derived from amongst the chatbots). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 8, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the output response combines information from the responses of the at least two chatbots (Kim [10-14, 45-47], discloses wherein response/answer is derived from amongst the chatbots). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 7 above.
As to claim 9, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the method includes generating the output response, including by using one of the responses of the at least two chatbots to verify or validate another of the responses of the at least two chatbots (Kim [45-47, 60-63], discloses wherein the generated response/answer is derived from a chatbot configured to provide relevant answer/response to the specific question). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 7 above.
As to claim 10, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising monitoring for subsequent interactions of the user after the output response is provided (Kim [62-64], monitor traffic interaction/communications associated with chatbot);
detecting an interaction of the user after the output response is provided; and adjusting a process of selecting chatbots to respond to user input based on the detected interaction of the user Kim [56-61], discloses wherein the bot DB may detect bot metadata corresponding to the received chatbot, then, the derivation unit may receive the bot metadata of the chatbot corresponding to the chatbot ID from the bot DB and derive an answer to the question message based on the received bot metadata of the chatbot). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 11, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, comprising storing a registry of chatbots, including storing an association of each of the chatbots with one or more topics, data sets, data objects, types of data, or keywords (Kim [66, 72-73], discloses chatbots previously stored in a database of the chatbot server); and
wherein selecting the subset of the multiple chatbots comprises selecting the subset of the multiple chatbots based on similarity or relevance of the topics, data sets, data objects, types of data, or keywords associated with the respective chatbots with respect to the text input from the user (Kim [9, 16, 72-73], utilizing machine learning and hybrid models for deriving scores of the respective multiple chatbots linked to the relay chatbot). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
As to claim 12, Kim-Thiyagarajan discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the subset of the multiple chatbots comprises using a machine learning model to select from among the multiple chatbots (Kim [72-75, 78-79], discloses wherein the machine learning model can be configured to predict probability values of processing a question message by the multiple chatbots and derive scores based on the predicted probability values). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Kim and Thiyagarajan as in claim 1 above.
Claims 13-20 are corresponding system and non-transitory computer-readable media claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 1-12 and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights