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
1. This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on October 7, 2025, on which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because the figures 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, and 4H are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 9, which is analyzed as follows:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for processing customer inquiries. Thus, the claim is to be a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for processing customer inquiries regarding financial information to provide a response to a customer. The Specification, para [0003] described “Historically, managing customer service inquiries for financial matters like checking invoice balances or obtaining payment links has been a labor-intensive and time-consuming task. In the past, when the customer needed to inquire about financial information such as invoice balances, payment links, or similar details, the process began with the customer initiating contact with the service provider. Typically, customers would reach out through traditional communication channels, including phone calls or emails. Phone calls are the most common means, where customers dial a customer service number and wait to be connected to a representative.” The claim recites the steps: receiving an inquiry related to a financial issue associated with the customer; analyzing the received inquiry to determine an intent associated with the inquiry; generating a prompt for requesting financial data…; analyzing the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient…; if determining that the information is sufficient, then generating the prompt…; if determining the information is insufficient, then requesting additional information from the customer; and delivering the response to the customer in real time…, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching , and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: receiving an inquiry related to a financial issue associated with the customer; analyzing the received inquiry to determine an intent associated with the inquiry; generating a prompt for requesting financial data…; analyzing the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient…; if determining that the information is sufficient, then generating the prompt…; if determining the information is insufficient, then requesting additional information from the customer; and delivering the response to the customer in real time…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “one or more processors of a computer system”; “a memory”; “receiving, via a communication interface, and inquiry”; “the inquiry is received via a voice or chat interface”; ”analyzing, via a natural language processing (NLP) module, the receive inquiries”; “providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient”; “generating an application programming interface (API) request for a financial management system for receiving a response from a database”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then the AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt for initializing the API request to retrieve the required financial data”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer”; “formatting by the communication interface the received response suitable for delivery to the customer”; and “delivering the formatted response…through the voice or chat interface.”
The additional elements “receiving, via a communication interface, and inquiry”; “the inquiry is received via a voice or chat interface”; ”analyzing, via a natural language processing (NLP) module, the receive inquiries”; “generating an application programming interface (API) request for a financial management system for receiving a response from a database”; “initializing the API request to retrieve the required financial data”; “instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer”; “formatting by the communication interface the received response suitable for delivery to the customer”; and “delivering the formatted response…through the voice or chat interface”, are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting, and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The additional elements “providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then the AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer”; provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The additional elements “providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then the AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the AI engine function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient, instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt, and instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer” and do not include any details about how the solution is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then the AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then the AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer” limit the identified judicial exceptions “analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient, instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt, and instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (AI model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the steps of “receiving an inquiry related to a financial issue associated with the customer; analyzing the received inquiry to determine an intent associated with the inquiry; generating a prompt for requesting financial data…; analyzing the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient…; if determining that the information is sufficient, then generating the prompt…; if determining the information is insufficient, then requesting additional information from the customer; and delivering the response to the customer in real time…”, are recited as being performed by the one or more processors. The processors are recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receiving an inquiry related to a financial issue associated with the customer…; and “delivering the response to the customer in real time”, the processors are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “analyzing the received inquiry to determine an intent associated with the inquiry; generating a prompt for requesting financial data…; analyzing the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient…; if determining that the information is sufficient, then generating the prompt…; if determining the information is insufficient, then requesting additional information from the customer”, the processors are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, the memory, and the software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the processor, the memory, the communication interface, the voice or chat interface, the NLP, the API, and the AI engine, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, displaying data and performing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of “providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then the AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt”; “if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer” are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements “receiving, via a communication interface, and inquiry”; “the inquiry is received via a voice or chat interface”; ”analyzing, via a natural language processing (NLP) module, the receive inquiries”; “generating an application programming interface (API) request for a financial management system for receiving a response from a database”; “initializing the API request to retrieve the required financial data”; “instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer”; “formatting by the communication interface the received response suitable for delivery to the customer”; and “delivering the formatted response…through the voice or chat interface” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “receiving, via a communication interface, and inquiry”; “the inquiry is received via a voice or chat interface”; ”analyzing, via a natural language processing (NLP) module, the receive inquiries”; “generating an application programming interface (API) request for a financial management system for receiving a response from a database”; “initializing the API request to retrieve the required financial data”; “instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer”; “formatting by the communication interface the received response suitable for delivery to the customer”; and “delivering the formatted response…through the voice or chat interface” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processors and the memory to perform limitations “receiving an inquiry related to a financial issue associated with the customer; analyzing the received inquiry to determine an intent associated with the inquiry; generating a prompt for requesting financial data…; analyzing the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient…; if determining that the information is sufficient, then generating the prompt…; if determining the information is insufficient, then requesting additional information from the customer; and delivering the response to the customer in real time…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 1, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent apparatus claim 9.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 10, the claims recite the additional elements “wherein the communication interface comprises a conversational AI tool configured to manage voice and chat interactions”, which merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “wherein the communication interface comprises a conversational AI tool configured to manage voice and chat interactions” limit the identified judicial exceptions “manage voice and chat interactions”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (AI model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). (See claim 9 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 3 and 11, the claims recite the additional elements “wherein the financial management system is an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system integrated with the NetSuite API”, which are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. (See claim 9 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 12, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the customer inquiries pertain specifically to collections, including checking invoice balances, generating payment links, and providing customer statements, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 9. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 13, the claims recite the additional elements “wherein the conversational AI tool is configured to automatically initiate financial queries based on the real-time interactions of the customer”, which merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “wherein the conversational AI tool is configured to automatically initiate financial queries based on the real-time interactions of the customer” limit the identified judicial exceptions “initiate financial queries based on the real-time interactions of the customer”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (AI model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). (See claim 9 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting dynamically updating the response based on additional customer input received during the conversation, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 9. Moreover, the claims recite the additional elements “wherein the conversational AI tool continues processing subsequent financial queries” also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional elements “wherein the conversational AI tool continues processing subsequent financial queries” limit the identified judicial exceptions “continues processing subsequent financial queries”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (AI model) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). (See claim 9 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 15, the claims recite the additional elements “wherein the communication interface allows the customer to select from multiple financial options during the conversation, and automatically adjusts the API request based on the selected financial option”, which are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. (See claim 9 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 16, the claims recite the additional elements “wherein the financial data is retrieved from a database, the database is configured to store inquiry, response and manage financial records…”, which are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. (See claim 9 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cartwright (US 2025/0342826).
Regarding claim 1, Cartwright discloses a method for guiding an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine to process customer inquiries regarding financial information to provide a response to a customer comprising:
executing codes using one or more processors of a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations (para [0014], The computing system includes a processor and memory that work in tandem to execute computer-executable instructions. These instructions enable the system to receive customer inquiries through voice or chat interfaces) comprising:;
receiving, via a communication interface, an inquiry associated with a financial issue, wherein the inquiry is received via a voice or chat interface (para [0034], the inquiry reception module 120 is responsible for receiving customer inquiries via voice or chat. This module works in conjunction with the processor 102 to ensure that all incoming inquiries are captured and ready for further processing);
analyzing, via a natural language processing (NLP) module, the received inquiry to determine an intent associated with the inquiry (para [0014], Upon receiving these inquiries, the system employs speech-to-text services to convert the inquiries into text format. This conversion allows for the subsequent analysis of the text to detect the intent behind the inquiries using a language model (e.g., an LLM); para [0034], The text conversion module 122 converts the received inquiries into text using speech-to-text services. This conversion enables the subsequent analysis of the text to detect the intent of the inquiries. The intent detection module 124 analyzes the converted text to detect the intent of the inquiries using a large language model (LLM));
generating a prompt, via a prompt generator, for requesting financial data, wherein the prompt is dynamically populated with information relevant to a determined intent based on predefined templates for the financial inquiry (para [0066], FIG. 5 depicts a computer-implemented method 500 for performing agent/function calling. The method 500 may include receiving a user request (block 502). The method may include combining a system prompt and tool descriptions to create a prompt template (block 504). The method 500 may include matching the user request with a tool description (block 506). The method 500 may include determining necessary input parameters for the tool based on the user request (block 508). The method 500 may include providing the search tool with the user input to generate input for the tool, and calling the tool with the request (block 510). The method 500 may include combining the prompt template with the tool response (block 512), and sending the combination to the LM to generate a final answer (block 514));
providing the generated prompt to the AI engine, wherein the AI engine analyzes the prompt to determine whether the provided information is sufficient to generate an application programming interface (API) request for a financial management system for receiving a response from a database to respond to the inquiry (para [0055], Next, the method may include analyzing the customer interaction using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to provide comprehensive answers based on information from various data sources (block 204). The RAG module integrates with the LM to enhance the Al agent's responses by retrieving relevant information from a knowledge base, a memory vector database storing successful interaction transcripts, and external APIs for dynamic information retrieval. This step ensures that the AI agent can provide accurate and contextually relevant responses to customer inquiries. This step may leverage a custom-tuned LM (e.g., an LLM) optimized for contact center domain knowledge);
if the AI engine determines that the information is sufficient, then AI engine instructs the prompt generator to generate the prompt for initiating the API request to retrieve the required financial data (para [0055], The LM analyzes the text to understand the customer's intent, enabling the system to provide relevant and accurate responses. The integration of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) further bolsters this step by enhancing answers with information retrieved from various data sources, such as a knowledge base, a memory vector database, and external APIs); or
if the AI engine determines that the information is insufficient, then the AI engine instructs the communication interface to request additional information from the customer (para [0050], The language model-powered AI agent module 112 retrieves the customer's reservation details from the database and confirms the possibility of changes based on availability. If the customer also inquires about the hotel's pet policy, which is not available in the system's database, the sentiment analysis module 114 detects the customer's need for additional information, and the human-in-the-middle escalation module 116 seamlessly transfers the call to a human agent to answer the question about pet policies);
formatting by the communication interface the received response suitable for delivery to the customer (para [0048], The response generation module 126 generates appropriate responses based on the detected intent, converting the response back into speech if necessary. This ensures that the customer receives a coherent and relevant answer to their inquiry); and
delivering the formatted response to the customer in real time through the voice or chat interface (para [0055], Once the intent is understood, the system generates a response that addresses the customer's inquiry. The use of text-to-speech services enables the system to deliver the response in a voice format, providing a natural and engaging interaction experience. This step may also involve the use of an interactive avatar that employs lip-syncing and animation techniques for realistic expression, enhancing customer engagement; para [0021], By leveraging LLMs and AI, the system can process and understand customer queries in real-time, providing accurate and personalized responses. This not only improves the efficiency of the contact center but also significantly reduces the response time to customer inquiries, leading to a more satisfactory customer experience).
Regarding claim 2, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the communication interface comprises a conversational AI tool configured to manage voice and chat interactions (para [0053], The method 200 may include receiving a customer interaction request through a voice channel or via an interactive avatar (block 202). This step involves the AI-driven agent, powered by a custom-tuned LM, engaging with customers. The computing environment for this step includes the integration of voice recognition and text-to-speech technologies to handle both voice and text-based interactions. The interactive avatar, equipped with lip-syncing and animation techniques, provides a visual interface for enhanced customer engagement. This step involves the initial interaction with the customer, where the system captures the customer's inquiry through either voice communication or chat messages. The computing environment is equipped to handle both text-based and voice interactions fluently, ensuring a wide range of customer preferences are accommodated).
Regarding claim 3, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the financial management system is an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system integrated with the NetSuite API (para [0027], the agent may operate within a framework that supports the use of external knowledge sources and larger language models for reasoning. This includes the implementation of a MRKL function for reasoning and function calling, allowing the agent to select the most suitable tool or API based on user input).
Regarding claim 4, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the customer inquiries pertain specifically to collections, including checking invoice balances, generating payment links, and providing customer statements (para [0045], The inquiry reception module 120 receives customer inquiries through various channels such as voice calls or chat messages, ensuring that every customer's request is captured for processing. A customer using a mobile app to send a chat message about account issues would have their inquiry captured by this module).
Regarding claim 5, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the conversational AI tool is configured to automatically initiate financial queries based on the real-time interactions of the customer (para [0021], By leveraging LLMs and AI, the system can process and understand customer queries in real-time, providing accurate and personalized responses).
Regarding claim 6, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
dynamically updating the response based on additional customer input received during the conversation, wherein the conversational AI tool continues processing subsequent financial queries (para [0038], In operation, the autonomous contact center system engages with customers through an AI-driven agent, powered by the LLM-powered AI agent module 112. Customers can interact with the system via voice or text, with the system dynamically adjusting responses based on the content and sentiment of the interaction, as analyzed by the sentiment analysis module 114).
Regarding claim 7, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the communication interface allows the customer to select from multiple financial options during the conversation, and automatically adjusts the API request based on the selected financial option (para [0064], The autonomous call center agent can adjust the agent's prompt based on the conversation stage. After the agent generates a contextual message, it may collect a response from a human (block 306). The architecture 300 may append this response to the message history. The architecture 300 may include a stage analyzer that reviews the conversation stage and feeds back into the loop for the autonomous agent to decide its next action (block 308). The process may be cyclical, as indicated by the loop arrow, meaning that the agent continues to interact with human input, adjust its prompts, and analyze the conversation stage until the process is complete).
Regarding claim 8, Cartwright discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the financial data is retrieved from a database, the database is configured to store inquiry, response and manage financial records, including invoice balances, customer account details, and payment information (para [0075], the method may involve utilizing external APIs or tools as part of the information retrieval process by the RAG module to enhance response accuracy. This step allows the system to access up-to-date information and specialized knowledge from external sources, further improving the quality of the responses).
Regarding claims 9-16, Cartwright discloses for guiding an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine to process customer inquiries regarding financial information to provide a response to a customer comprising:
one or more processors of a computer system (figure 1 and para [0030], The computing environment 100 includes a processor 102. The processor 102 may include one or more CPUs,
a memory, coupled to the one or more processors, that stores code and execution of the code by the one or more processors (figure 1 and para [0031], The computing environment 100 also includes a memory 104. The memory 104 may include a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive (HDD), a magnetic storage, a flash memory, a solid-state drive (SSD), and/or one or more other suitable types of volatile or non-volatile memory) causes the computer system to perform operation described in claims 1-8 above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-16 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mahler-Haug et al. (US 2025/0200289) disclose an agent interaction apparatus and methods include obtaining streaming interaction data contemporaneously generated from an interaction with a user; determining, with a large language model, an intent expressed in the streaming interaction data; generating a prompt comprising one or more inquiries based on the intent expressed in the streaming interaction data.
Lanka et al. (US 2025/0061453) disclose methods and systems for providing an artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversation system for facilitating a conversation with users and processing transactions for the users.
Shi et al. (US 2020/0211029) disclose methods and systems for generating a customer inquiry processing model for processing customer inquiries.
Mandel et al. (US 2017/0243137) disclose in a crowd sourcing approach, responses to customer service inquiries are provided by routing a subset of the inquiries to an independent group of experts.
Gorelov et al. (US 2015/0134449) disclose a method receives a request from a user and identifies financial data associated with the user. The method determines an answer to the request from the user and infers a user intent based on the financial data associated with the user.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 25, 2026
