DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/338962 filed on 24 September 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 13, and 20, these claims recite generating a question-answering service based on a processing flow connection relationship, where the question-answering service is configured in a manner described in the claims. The claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the claimed “question-answering service” nor the claimed “processing flow connection relationship.” The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these limitations encompasses a simple processing flow connection relationship and a simple question-answering service, as depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 2 and described in para. 0030-0038 of Applicant’s published specification. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could mentally perform the claimed generating of a question-answering service with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could mentally visualize a simple processing flow connection relationship and the various the steps/components of the corresponding question answering service. A human could also draw out a diagram of these steps/components on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “displaying a functional code encapsulation component set in an edition interaction page of a question-answering service edition application”;
b) “in response to a component selection operation on the functional code encapsulation component set, displaying, in a question-answering service edition page include in the edition interaction page:
a trigger component, a question-answering strategy component, and a language question-answering model component that are selected from the functional code encapsulation component set through the component selection operation, and
a processing flow connection relationship among the trigger component, the question-answering strategy component, and the language question-answering model component;”
c) a computer device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; and
d) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions for execution by a processor.
Limitations (a) and (b) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitations (c) and (d) are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, 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. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations (a) and (b) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional elements (c) and (d) amount to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2 and 14, these claims recite generic, high-level recitations of data gathering and outputting, which is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, these limitations cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 3 and 15, these claims recite filtering the service question and performing question-answering identification on the filtered service question as described in the claims. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these limitations goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these limitations are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. These claims also recite displaying a question-answering interaction page, obtaining a service question, invoking the question-answering strategy component, and displaying the question-answering service result. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 4-6 and 16-18, these claims recite certain details of the “question-answering identification” and/or “filtering the service question.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, nothing in these limitations goes beyond what a human could mentally perform with the aid of pencil and paper. Hence, these limitations are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. These claims also recite “obtaining a performance record table” as described in the claims. This amounts to mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 7 and 19, these claims recite configuring the following: a service forbidden word, a question-processing abnormal format, a frequency threshold, and a question permission range. Performing these configurations amounts to no more than a series of judgements/evaluations. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the judgements/evaluations necessary to achieve these configurations. Hence, these limitations are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 8, this claim recites determining a target instance template identifier. This amounts to no more than a judgement/evaluation. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the judgement/evaluation necessary to achieve the claimed determining. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. This claim also recites “displaying” and “updating” limitations that are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 9-10, these claims recite limitations for creating processing flow connection relationships and making certain determinations. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform these limitations. Hence, these claims are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 11, this claim recites counting a number of times of occurrence of text fragments. This amounts to no more than mathematical operations. Hence, the claimed counting is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively, the claimed “counting” could be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping, since a human could mentally perform the claimed counting with the aid of pencil and paper. These claims also recite several “obtaining” limitations that are high-level, generic recitations that amount to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). These claims also recite training a language model based on the question-answering word vector. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, which cannot be deemed a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claim 12, this claim recites performing statistics on a running state and service quality quantification data. This limitation amounts to no more than mathematical operations. Accordingly, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively, the claimed “performing statistics” could be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping, since a human could mentally perform the statistics with the aid of pencil and paper. These claims also recite making certain adjustments based on the running state and the service quality quantification data. This amounts to no more than a series of judgements/evaluations, i.e. judging/evaluating the running state and the service quality quantification data in order to determine the appropriate adjustments to make. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a simple case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform these judgements/evaluations. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. These claims also recite creating a performance logtable and recording log information through the performance log table. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to generating question-answering service.
a. Fernández et al.; “FEATURE ENGINEERING WITH QUESTION GENERATION”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20210294781 A1.
Teaches automatically generating a question answer service (see abstract and para. 0035-0041).
b. Yao et al.; “PROVIDING QUESTION AND ANSWER SERVICES”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20110258192 A1.
Teaches generating a question and answer service (see abstract and para. 0014-0015).
c. Wang et al.; “AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF QUESTION ANSWER PAIRS”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20230133392 A1.
Teaches automatic generation of a question answering system (see abstract and 0027-0039).
d. Tremblay et al.; “MULTI-SERVICE BUSINESS PLATFORM SYSTEM HAVING CUSTOM WORKFLOW ACTIONS SYSTEMS AND METHODS”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20220343250 A1.
Teaches generating a question answering service (see para. 0015, 0210, 0224, and 0255) based on a workflow with relationships between nodes (see Figs. 5, 12, 18, and 48).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights