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 .
Incomplete Office Action
In response to applicant's request for interview (please see interview summary) regarding the previous Office Action, the following corrective action is taken.
The previous action is withdrawn, and superseded by this action.
The period for reply of 3 MONTHS set in said Office Action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter.
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 05/02/2025.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 9 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 9, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receive a user input in a natural language format to initiate the interactive engagement, the user input comprising one or more academic program inquiries; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this user input; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
evaluate the user input to determine whether the user input is sufficient for determining an engagement intent of the user with the academic program guidance system; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could evaluation a user input to determine whether the input is sufficient to determine a suer intent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
in response to determining the user input is sufficient to determine the engagement intent: (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform steps in response to a determined intent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
translate the user input into one or more prompt inputs according to a set of academic engagement prompts, the set of academic engagement prompts providing a framework for correlating the user input against one or more databases of the plurality of databases; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could translate an input into prompts in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
and generate a set of search queries based on the one or more prompt inputs for retrieving a set of response data from the one or more databases, the set of search queries comprises a user profile search query for retrieving a user profile for the user from the user profile database; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a set of search queries based on inputs in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
and execute the set of search queries at the one or more databases to retrieve the set of response data to the user input, the set of response data comprising the program data identified from the one or more databases based at least on the user profile; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could execute a set of search queries; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
and otherwise, generate one or more information requests for obtaining additional information for clarifying the engagement intent of the user with the academic program guidance system; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate additional information requests if user intent cannot be determined; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
and generate a program guidance output in reply to the user input based on the set of response data, the program guidance output being in the natural language format and addressing the one or more academic program inquiries. (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a program guidance output in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
and a processor operable to: (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a plurality of databases comprising an academic program database comprising program data related to a plurality of academic programs, and a user profile database comprising user data related to a plurality of users of the academic program guidance system; (claims 1, 9; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 10:
determine that the user input lacks sufficient information for generating the engagement intent of the user with the academic program;
generate the one or more information requests for clarifying the engagement intent of the user based on one or more of the user input and the user profile of the user.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate information requests for clarifying an engagement intent based on a determination that the user input lacks sufficient information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals.
Claims 3 and 11:
wherein the engagement intent comprises one or more of an initial inquiry intent for the user exploring different academic program options, and an advanced inquiry intent for the user knowledgeable about academic program options.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the intent used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 4 and 12:
wherein the processor is further operable to: generate the set of search queries based on the one or more prompt inputs and the engagement intent of the user.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a set of search queries based on this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals.
Claims 5 and 13:
wherein the processor is further operable to: assess the user input to identify the one or more databases from which data is required for generating the program guidance output;
and generate the one or more prompt inputs from the user input by referencing a context of the user input and the user profile, and the plurality of databases of the academic program guidance system.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could assess a user input to identify which databases are appropriate and generate prompts by referencing a context and databases; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals.
Claims 6 and 14:
wherein the processor is further operable to: determine, from the user input, that the user is not associated with the user profile stored in the user profile database;
and generate the user profile for the user based at least on the user input.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that a user is not associated with a profile in a database and generate a profile for a user based on a user input; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals.
Claims 7 and 15:
request one or more user data requests for obtaining additional information on the user for generating the user profile.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request user data for generating a profile; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals.
Claims 8 and 16:
wherein the processor is further operable to: generate the program guidance output by applying one or more natural language generation techniques to the set of response data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a program guidance output using natural language generation techniques applied to a set of input data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites managing personal behavior or relationships including teaching, rule following, and social activities since this step would be performed by career guidance counselors in helping individuals decide what academic choices are right for the individuals.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190303798; hereinafter "Xie") in view of Tiwari et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20220237567; hereinafter "Tiwari") further in view of Wheeler et al. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20240412313; hereinafter "Wheeler").
As per claim 1, Xie teaches:
An intelligent academic program guidance system for providing a user with an interactive engagement with respect to academic programs, the academic program guidance system comprising:
Xie teaches a system and method for generating career paths for users. (Xie: abstract) Xie further teaches that the system may comprise an interactive process wherein courses, potential research opportunities, skill to learn, mentorship opportunities, etc. (academic programs) may be suggested to the user. (Xie: paragraph [0026-28])
a plurality of databases comprising an academic program database comprising program data related to a plurality of academic programs, and a user profile database comprising user data related to a plurality of users of the academic program guidance system;
Xie teaches a plurality of databases. (Xie: paragraph [0030]) Xie teaches a user profile database. (Xie: paragraph [0038]) Xie further teaches another database which may store data regarding career path opportunities to be presented to a user. (Xie: paragraph [0038])
and a processor operable to:
Xie teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Xie: paragraphs [0068-75], Figs. 8-9)
receive a user input in a natural language format to initiate the interactive engagement, the user input comprising one or more academic program inquiries;
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5)
evaluate the user input to determine whether the user input is sufficient for determining an engagement intent of the user with the academic program guidance system;
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5)
With respect to the following limitation:
in response to determining the user input is sufficient to determine the engagement intent:
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the inquiry may initiate a search for academic programs for a user. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie however, does not appear to explicitly teach taking different actions based on whether the input is sufficient to determine the user intent.
Tiwari, however, teaches, in the context of matching a user with educational opportunities, that a system may attempt to glean a user's intent behind a statement input into a chatbot, and, if sufficient confidence of the user's intent is achieved, the system may continue a search for opportunities, otherwise, the system may submit a request to another model for determining the intent. (Tiwari: paragraphs [0056-57]) Tiwari teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Xie for the benefit of providing a system which enhances the user experience by enabling the application process to proceed via natural language messages and prompts, reducing the amount of applicant information that is provided directly by the user, reducing the number of mistakes in the application process, and maximizing the benefit to the user by enabling the application to multiple or different opportunities with minimal additional effort. (Tiwari: paragraph [0007]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tiwari with the teachings of Xie to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Xie in view of Tiwari does not appear to explicitly teach:
translate the user input into one or more prompt inputs according to a set of academic engagement prompts, the set of academic engagement prompts providing a framework for correlating the user input against one or more databases of the plurality of databases;
Wheeler, however, teaches that an information element input into a chatbot may cause the chatbot to generate search parameters for a database, wherein the search parameters may be used to search the database and return one or more opportunities for a user (see Figs. 5C and 5D indicating the returned information may comprise academic programs) from the database. (Wheeler: paragraphs [0119-124], Fig. 6B) Wheeler teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Xie in view of Tiwari for the benefit of providing a recommendation process which may be customized, effective, and comprehensive. (Wheeler: paragraph [0025]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wheeler with the teachings of Xie in view of Tiwari to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler further teaches:
and generate a set of search queries based on the one or more prompt inputs for retrieving a set of response data from the one or more databases, the set of search queries comprises a user profile search query for retrieving a user profile for the user from the user profile database;
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the inquiry may initiate a search for academic programs for a user. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that user profile information may be retrieved using one or more search queries. (Xie: paragraph [0044])
and execute the set of search queries at the one or more databases to retrieve the set of response data to the user input, the set of response data comprising the program data identified from the one or more databases based at least on the user profile;
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the inquiry may initiate a search for academic programs for a user. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that user profile information may be retrieved using one or more search queries. (Xie: paragraph [0044]) Wheeler, as outlined above, teaches that an information element input into a chatbot may cause the chatbot to generate search parameters for a database, wherein the search parameters may be used to search the database and return one or more opportunities for a user (see Figs. 5C and 5D indicating the returned information may comprise academic programs) from the database, wherein the opportunities may be based on user profile information. (Wheeler: paragraphs [0114-124], Fig. 6B) The motivation to combine Wheeler persists.
and otherwise, generate one or more information requests for obtaining additional information for clarifying the engagement intent of the user with the academic program guidance system;
Tiwari, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of matching a user with educational opportunities, that a system may attempt to glean a user's intent behind a statement input into a chatbot, and, if sufficient confidence of the user's intent is achieved, the system may continue a search for opportunities, otherwise, the system may submit a request to another model for determining the intent. (Tiwari: paragraphs [0056-57]) The motivation to combine Tiwari persists.
and generate a program guidance output in reply to the user input based on the set of response data, the program guidance output being in the natural language format and addressing the one or more academic program inquiries.
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that the one or more recommendations may be output to the user. (Xie: paragraph [0048])
As per claim 2, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
determine that the user input lacks sufficient information for generating the engagement intent of the user with the academic program;
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Tiwari, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of matching a user with educational opportunities, that a system may attempt to glean a user's intent behind a statement input into a chatbot, and, if sufficient confidence of the user's intent is achieved, the system may continue a search for opportunities, otherwise, the system may submit a request to another model for determining the intent. (Tiwari: paragraphs [0056-57]) The motivation to combine Tiwari persists.
generate the one or more information requests for clarifying the engagement intent of the user based on one or more of the user input and the user profile of the user.
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Tiwari, as outlined above, teaches, in the context of matching a user with educational opportunities, that a system may attempt to glean a user's intent behind a statement input into a chatbot, and, if sufficient confidence of the user's intent is achieved, the system may continue a search for opportunities, otherwise, the system may submit a request to another model for determining the intent. (Tiwari: paragraphs [0056-57]) The motivation to combine Tiwari persists.
As per claim 3, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the engagement intent comprises one or more of an initial inquiry intent for the user exploring different academic program options, and an advanced inquiry intent for the user knowledgeable about academic program options.
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5)
As per claim 4, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further operable to: generate the set of search queries based on the one or more prompt inputs and the engagement intent of the user.
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the inquiry may initiate a search for academic programs for a user. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that user profile information may be retrieved using one or more search queries. (Xie: paragraph [0044])
As per claim 5, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further operable to: assess the user input to identify the one or more databases from which data is required for generating the program guidance output;
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the inquiry may initiate a search for academic programs for a user. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that user profile information may be retrieved using one or more search queries. (Xie: paragraph [0044]) Wheeler, as outlined above, teaches that an information element input into a chatbot may cause the chatbot to generate search parameters for a database, wherein the search parameters may be used to search the database and return one or more opportunities for a user (see Figs. 5C and 5D indicating the returned information may comprise academic programs) from the database, wherein the opportunities may be based on user profile information. (Wheeler: paragraphs [0114-124], Fig. 6B) The motivation to combine Wheeler persists.
and generate the one or more prompt inputs from the user input by referencing a context of the user input and the user profile, and the plurality of databases of the academic program guidance system.
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the inquiry may initiate a search for academic programs for a user. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that user profile information may be retrieved using one or more search queries. (Xie: paragraph [0044]) Wheeler, as outlined above, teaches that an information element input into a chatbot may cause the chatbot to generate search parameters for a database, wherein the search parameters may be used to search the database and return one or more opportunities for a user (see Figs. 5C and 5D indicating the returned information may comprise academic programs) from the database, wherein the opportunities may be based on user profile information. (Wheeler: paragraphs [0114-124], Fig. 6B) The motivation to combine Wheeler persists.
As per claim 8, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is further operable to: generate the program guidance output by applying one or more natural language generation techniques to the set of response data.
Xie teaches that a user's inquiry regarding career paths may be input in a natural language format to a chatbot, wherein the chatbot may attempt to interpret the intent of the user's inquiry, and respond to the user inquiry. (Xie: paragraph [0057-61], Fig. 5) Xie further teaches that the one or more recommendations may be output to the user. (Xie: paragraph [0048])
As per claim 9, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method of operating an intelligent academic program guidance system for providing a user with an interactive engagement with respect to academic programs, the method comprising:
Xie teaches a system and method for generating career paths for users. (Xie: abstract) Xie further teaches that the system may comprise an interactive process wherein courses, potential research opportunities, skill to learn, mentorship opportunities, etc. (academic programs) may be suggested to the user. (Xie: paragraph [0026-28])
As per claims 10-13 and 16, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-5 and 8, and claims 10-13 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-5 and 8, as outlined above.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler and further in view of Faghri, Amir (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20240273445; hereinafter "Faghri").
As per claim 6, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is further operable to: determine, from the user input, that the user is not associated with the user profile stored in the user profile database;
Faghri, however, teaches that information identifying a user may be used to determine whether a user profile exists for that individual, and, if no profile exists, one may be generated for them. (Faghri: paragraph [0043-44]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler, or by Faghri. Checking to see if a user profile exists and creating one if a profile does not exist does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Faghri with the teachings of Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler further in view of Faghri further teaches:
and generate the user profile for the user based at least on the user input.
Faghri, however, teaches that information identifying a user may be used to determine whether a user profile exists for that individual, and, if no profile exists, one may be generated for them. (Faghri: paragraph [0043-44]) The motivation to combine Faghri persists.
As per claim 7, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler further in view of Faghri teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as outlined above, and further teaches:
request one or more user data requests for obtaining additional information on the user for generating the user profile.
Faghri, however, teaches that information identifying a user may be used to determine whether a user profile exists for that individual, and, if no profile exists, one may be generated for them, wherein information requests may be used to generate the profile. (Faghri: paragraph [0043-44]) The motivation to combine Faghri persists.
As per claims 14-15, Xie in view of Tiwari further in view of Wheeler further in view of Faghri teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claims 6-7, and claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 6-7, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628