[24]/7.ai, Inc. - [2019] APO 50

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
[24]/7.ai, Inc. [2019] APO 50

Patent Application: 2015300932

Title:Method and apparatus for providing customized interaction experience to customers

Patent Applicant:                   [24]7.ai, Inc.
Delegate:  K. Wagg
Decision Date:  20 November 2019
Hearing Date:  Written Submissions 28 November 2018, further submissions 3 February 2019.

Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection during examination – manner of manufacture – the collection of interaction and non – interaction data of a customer to predict their intention and more prominently display content based on their data using a processor, memory and input/output module is not a manner of manufacture – no patentable subject matter in the specification – application refused.

Patent Attorney for the
Applicant:Pizzeys

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2015300932

Titles:Method and apparatus for providing customized interaction experience to customers.

Patent Applicant: [24]7.ai, Inc.
Date of Decision: 20 November 2019
DECISION
I do not find any patentable subject matter in the specification. I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background

Patent application number 2015300932 (the application) was filed by 24/7 Customer, Inc, now [24]7.ai, Inc (the applicant) on 06 August 2015 through PCT/US2015/044039. The application claims an earliest priority date of 06 August 2014. Given this, the substantive amendments to the Patents Act brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 apply to this case, including that the Commissioner must accept a patent request and specification if she is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the requirements of s 49 are met. If she is not satisfied, then she may refuse the application.
A delegate of the Commissioner of Patents (the examiner) issued the First Examination Report on 4 September 2017. In that examination report the examiner raised three objections including that the claims do not define a manner of manufacture and that claims 1,12 and 18 are not novel and that claims 1-23 do not involve an inventive step. The applicant responded with arguments and amendments on 26 November 2017. The examiner issued a second report on 14 December 2017 with the objection that the claims do not involve a manner of manufacture. The applicant responded with arguments to this outstanding objection. The examiner issued a third report on 3 April 2018 maintaining the manner of manufacture objection. The applicant responded with arguments and further amendments on 5 June 2018. A fourth examination report dated 3 July 2018 was issued maintaining the outstanding manner of manufacture objection. This resulted in a further response with arguments from the applicant. The examiner issued a fifth report and a request to be heard was received by the Commissioner on 2 September 2018. Written submissions were received on 28 November 2018.
The Federal court decision[1] on Rokt was handed down on 12 December 2018 and in view of this a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents allowed the applicant until 1 February 2019 to file further submissions in relation to that case. The further submissions were received on 3 February 2019.
[1] Rokt…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading [24]/7.ai, Inc.

Details

AGLC: [24]/7.ai, Inc. [2019] APO 50
Case: [2019] APO 50
Decision Date: 20 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Patent Office refused the applicant's patent application for a method and apparatus for providing customized interaction experience to customers. The invention relates to predicting customer interactions by collecting interaction and non-interaction data and using it to make predictions about a customer's intention. The applicant argued that the invention involved an improvement in the function of the computer by employing linkages across channels to enable passing of an interaction context and improve the granularity of customer intention prediction. The examiner argued that the invention was merely a method of organizing human activity and did not involve a manner of manufacture. The delegate of the Commissioner of Patents found that the invention did not involve a manner of manufacture and did not solve a technical problem within the computer. The delegate concluded that the invention was not patentable subject matter and refused the application. The applicant may appeal the decision to the Federal Court.

Orders