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
The following is a non-final office action. Claims [2-21] are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim 1 has been canceled see REMARKS November 05, 2025.
Claims 2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-18, and 20-21 are currently amended see REMARKS November 05, 2025.
Double Patenting (Non-Statutory)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 of Application No. 19/302812 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of Patent No. 12412199.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application (19/302812) is directed to a common and substantially similar subject matter claimed of the patent (12412199).
Independent claims 2, 14, and 21 of the instant application ’812 are a broader version of the claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent 12412199. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the method of generating an input prompt for an artificial intelligence coach; providing the input prompt to the artificial intelligence coach, the artificial intelligence coach being configured to generate an output based on the custom input data, the output including customer service feedback for the individual; transmitting, the customer service feedback to a client device, and after transferring the customer service feedback to the client device engaging in a follow-on conversation about the feedback suing the artificial coach as disclosed by the independent claims are substantially similar to the method of generating an input prompt from an artificial intelligence coach, providing the input prompt to the artificial intelligence coach to generate an output based on the input data, the output including customer service feedback, transmitting the customer service feedback to a client device; and after transmitting the customer service feedback to the client device engaging in a follow-on conversation with the employee about the customer service feedback as disclosed by claims 1, 8, and 15 of the prior patent.
Thus, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other since the same inventive concept is being claimed twice utilizing slightly alternative/obvious language wherein the instant claims 2, 14, and 21 of the ‘812 application are broader in scope and is anticipated by and/or obvious over the claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent 12412199.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the system and method recited in claims 2, 14, and 21 of application 19/302812 are an obvious variant of the method recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 of patent 12412199. Thus, the conflicting claims and their respective dependent claims are not patentably distinct from each other since substantially similar inventive features are being claimed in both the instant application and the former application utilizing equivalent and/or obvious variants of each other.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected under Double patenting.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: claims 2-13 recite a method (i.e. a process such as an act or series of steps), claim 14-20 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and claim 21 recites a system, and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 2, 14, and 21 recite: A method comprising: generating, an input prompt, the input prompt including custom input data associated with an individual; providing, the input prompt, based on the custom input data, the output including customer service feedback for the individual; engaging, in a follow-on conversation about the customer service feedback, wherein the engaging in the follow-on conversation involves receiving a message related to the customer service feedback and generating a response to the message.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims recite a series of steps for generating or writing feedback for an employee based on an input or information associated with the employee. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea as they are a series of steps or rules for receiving information pertaining to an employee and performing instructions to analyze the received information to determine feedback or suggestions to coach the employee, such as generating a body of text to help coach or mentor an employee based on customer feedback comments from previous interactions.
Alternatively the claims recite a mental process. The claims recite a method of obtaining data associated with an employee such as feedback information, processing the obtained information, and determining customer service feedback to be transmitted to the employee. Such as receiving reviews or feedback from a customer and using the reviews or metrics to generate suggestions or coaching recommendations to the user. The claims therefore, recite a mental process as a person is capable of performing a series of steps to generate customer service feedback such as coaching and mentoring information based on received information such as comments and reviews from a customer. Additionally, the claims recite steps and procedures that are similar to concepts the courts have identified as a mental process such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 2: one or more processors, an artificial intelligence coach being configured to generate an output, and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the customer service feedback to a client device via a network.
Claim 14: A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations; an artificial intelligence coach being configured to generate an output, and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the customer service feedback to a client device via a network.
Claim 21: A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories including instructions that are executable by the one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations; an artificial intelligence coach being configured to generate an output, and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the customer service feedback to a client device via a network.
The additional element of a system comprising generic computer elements and generic software elements such as an artificial intelligence coach are found to recite mere instructions to apply a generic computer and technology to execute the method in the recited claim limitations, as merely using a computer platform to transmit, display, and manipulate information is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely using generic computer elements such as processing devices and generic software components such as an artificial intelligence to receive and analyze information to perform the abstract is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Accordingly, the 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.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize the generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of obtaining information such as customer input data associated with an employee and performing a series of operations such generating an output based on the input. For example the merely using an artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT to receive a body of text or prompt as an input and generate an output is not an improvement in a technology or technical field but merely using a generic technology to perform the abstract idea of processing input data such as customer reviews to generate an output such as coaching or mentoring data for an employee. Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to significantly more.
The dependent claims 3-13 and 15-20 further narrow the abstract idea of processing input data to generate customer service feedback for an employee, recited in the independent claims 2, 14, and 21 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 3: a large language model.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or being applied to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hazy (US 2021/0042854) System and method for providing a technology supported trusted performance feedback and experiential learning system.
Schillace (US 2024/0202452) Prompt generation simulating fine-tuning for machine learning model.
Tran (US 2023/0252224) Systems and methods for machine content generation.
Maikhuri (US 2024/0054430) Intuitive AI-powered personal effectiveness in connected workplace.
Shook (US 11126949 Generating a user interface for an employee.
Pimplikar (US 2023/0186197) Effective performance assessment.
Childress (US 2024/0020715) Customer sentiment monitoring and detection systems and methods.
Morrissey (US 2023/0237416) System and method for assessing work habits and providing relevant support.
Cazier, Joseph A., and Jennifer A. Green. "Life coach: using big data and analytics to facilitate the attainment of life goals." 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 2016.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights