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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/26 has been entered.
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/26/26. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. No claims have been added. No claims are currently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the previous 101 rejection stating “The specific technical problem identified in the Present Application , ¶0002 is a technical problem and clearly not directed towards Organizing Human Activity. To solve the technical problem, claim 1 includes a specifically organized architecture with specific functions and interactions between the functions that solve the technical problem recited above in ¶0002 that is arranged in a novel way.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to collecting, organizing, analyzing data, configuring data, and displaying data from multiple sources. Specifically, receiving interaction data, normalizing and unifying it into a common format, grouping it into cohorts based on common attributes, applying analytical techniques to drive insights, and presenting those insights on a dashboard. This application describes software for analyzing customer interactions that arrive through many different channels, such as phone, chat, email, social media, and other digital or analog sources. The system receives very small interaction pieces, called sub-atomic interactions, and turns them into a more complete interaction record. It then groups related interaction pieces into an atomic interaction, which can represent a full conversation or transaction. The manipulated data is applied to customers and directed to analyzing commercial interactions and therefore is an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” directed to analyzing commercial interactions which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
The applicant has argued “There is no evidence that the claim is a process that can be performed in the human mind, by a human using a pen and paper, or organizes any human activity. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim does not set forth or describe an abstract idea.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to omnichannel data analytics for customer experience management or something similar. It outlines a data processing and a unification system designed to manage and analyze large volumes of data types from communication channels. Although the invention is claiming different modules. The modules as claimed appear to be only programmed to perform specific steps. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The claims are directed to the mental process of receiving, transforming, grouping, analyzing, and presenting data from multiple channels to generate actional insights. This is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, arguably more slowly. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”). Specifically applicant’s claims perform a mental process on a generic computer (client computing device). An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01. The applicant is also using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. The applicant has failed to state where the improvement to the technology is. The applicant appears to only be arguing an improvement to customer experience.
The applicant has argued “A method to address sheer volume and Addresses a technical problem incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction, the method comprising… addresses a technical problem.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. A preamble statement of purpose or desired result does not transform otherwise abstract steps into a patent eligible subject matter. A mere preamble statement is simply applying the abstract idea of data collection and normalization into context. The identified problem is a problem about data which is an abstract idea.
The applicant has argued the limitations “transforming the sub-atomic interaction set from a first object to a second object, the second object being associated with a data wherein the ingestion pipeline module includes the interaction unification module and a data enrichment module coupled to an output of the interaction unification module; • Humans do not transform a first object into a second object "to address sheer cohort using an interaction unification module, volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such transformation is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such transformation does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that humans do not perform this transformation confuses the complexity of the task with patent eligibility. The abstract idea exception is not overcome merely because an operation is too complex for a human to perform efficiently. The inquiry is whether the claimed transformation is directed to an abstract concept. Here, the conversion of data from one format or schema to another is an abstract idea regardless of the scale or complexity of the data. The Specification characterizes the transformation as applying “business transformation rules in order to put data into a consistent structure, format, type or form.” The mere labeling of this conventional operation with novel terminology does not transform the conventional nature of the underlying data transformation into a non-conventional computer function. Neither the claim nor the specification identifies how the transformation is performed at any level of technical specificity beyond applying “business rules.”
The applicant has argued “modifying an attribute associated with the second object to configure the second object to be used in sub-atomic interaction convergence, using the interaction unification module; • Humans do not "modify[] an attribute associated with the second object to configure the second object to be used in sub-atomic interaction convergence" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such transformation is not a routine conventional computer function. Such modifying does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument regarding the modifying step is substantively identical in structure and reasoning to the argument made for the transforming step, and is unpersuasive for the same reason. The applicant has not identified any feature of the modifying step that is specifically and meaningfully distinct from the abstract idea of data attribute manipulation, but has instead reused the same conclusory assertion across multiple claim elements. The modifying step merely recites updating an attribute of a data object. This is functionally equivalent to a conventional database operating a field or flag in a data record to indicate its status or readiness for subsequent processing. The modifying step fails to recite any specific algorithm, logic, data structure, or technical mechanism by which the interaction unification module modifies the attribute of the second object. The claim recites only the functional outcome that an attribute is modified.
The applicant has argued “identifying a plurality of related interactions from the sub-atomic interaction set, using the interaction unification module, the plurality of related interactions being combined into an atomic interaction associated with the second object. • Humans do not "combine[] into an atomic interaction associated with the second object" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such combining is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such combining does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments that humans do not combine data records into an atomic interaction is factually incorrect at the conceptual level. The act of grouping related communications or events into a single unified record is an activity a human can do in their own mind. The specification describes the combining steps as grouping related interactions. The field of record linkage and entity resolution is known in commercial implementations. Applicant’s argument that the combining step does not organize human activity is not persuasive. The combining step groups data records generated by human customer-agent interactions. Certain methods of organizing human activities expressly encompasses managing interactions between people and organizing business relations. The applicants argument is unsupported by evidence. It is unclear how the way the applicant combines data is any type of a technical improvement or improvement to a technology.
The applicant has argued “aligning, using the ingestion pipeline module, a data attribute parsed from the atomic interaction to identify one or more interaction attributes from one or more data channels monitored by the omnichannel data analysis engine, the one or more interaction attributes being assigned a common attribute; • Humans do not "align[] a data attribute parsed from the atomic interaction to identify one or more interaction attributes from one or more data channels" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction."• Such aligning is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such aligning does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Data attribute alignment across heterogenous sources is a human cognitive task that data engineers and analysts performed before automated tools were developed to assist with it. Applicant’s arguments that the aligning step does not organize human activity is not persuasive. The aligning step operates on data attributes parsed from customer agent interactions across communication channels and assigns them common attributes to enable unified analysis. Applicant’s own paragraph 2 of the specification states “to improve transactions and financial performance, which can be dramatically affected by how well such transactions with consumers are handled.” Assigning standardized identifiers is among the most common of all data management operations. The aligning step merely describes the core functionality of customer data platforms.
The applicant has argued “configuring, by the interaction unification module, the data attribute to conform to a unified atomic interaction object definition, which identifies the structure and rules governing conformance of data attributes to each other, data storage schemas, and processing requirements for various elements of omni channel data analysis engine; • Humans do not "configure[] the data attribute to conform to a unified atomic interaction object definition, which identifies the structure and rules governing conformance of data attributes to each other, data storage schemas, and processing requirements for various elements of omnichannel data analysis engine" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such configuring is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such configuring does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion that humans do not configure data attributes to conform to a unified object definition is incorrect. Configuring data to conform to defined schedules and structural rules has been a human activity in data management for decades. The specifications describes the united atomic interaction object definition as identifying structure and rules governing conformance of data attributes to each other, data storage schemas, and processing requirements confirms that this step describes a standard schema. The applicant did not invent schema conformance and data conformance. Applicant’s argument that the configuring step odes not organize human activity is not persuasive. The configuring step standardizes customer interaction data to conform to a unified schema that governs processing requirements. Configuring data to conform to enterprise wise standards that govern how customer interaction data is processed stored, and used by organizational decision makers is a method of organizing commercial business activity and managing interactions between people with an enterprise context. The configuring step recites only the functional outcome of schema conformance without specifying any validation logic, transformation algorithm, conflict resolution mechanism, or technical implementation by which conformance is achieved or enforced. The claim therefore covers any and all methods of achieving schema conformance for customer interaction data attributes, regardless of technical implementation.
The applicant has argued “evaluating the atomic interaction and the data attribute, by the interaction unification module, after being configured to conform to the unified atomic interaction object definition, to extract a portion of the second object, the portion being used to derive another attribute; • Humans do not "evaluate[] the atomic interaction and the data attribute ... after being configured to conform to the unified atomic interaction object definition, to extract a portion of the second object, the portion being used to derive another attribute" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such evaluating is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such evaluating does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s assertion that humans do not evaluate data records to extract portions and drive new attributes is incorrect. Reading a record, extracting relevant information, and using that information to drive new conclusions is often done in the human mind this can be seen in applicant’s specification paragraph 28. The evaluating step describes two fundamental data operations extracting a portion of a data object and deriving a new attribute from the extracted portion. No aspect of the combination is non-conventional in the computing arts. Applicant’s argument that the evaluating step does not organize human activity is inconsistent with the specification’s own description of the purpose of the step. The derived attributes generated by the evaluation step described in the speciation as inputs to business intelligence and decision-making process. The specification also describes the derived attributes as including sentiment scores and topic classifications which is directed to organizing human judgement about customer interactions. The evaluating step presents a compounding abstraction problem. The step recites extracting a portion of the second object without specifying what portion or attribute, how it is derived, or what computational method generates it. Every operative element of the evaluating step is not specified.
The applicant has argued “mapping, using an analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module, the data attribute to the atomic interaction to each other to generate one or more data cohorts based on the common attribute and an aligned data attribute; Humans do not "map[] the data attribute to the atomic interaction to each other to generate one or more data cohorts based on the common attribute and an aligned data attribute" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such mapping is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such mapping does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion that humans do not map data attributes to generated cohorts based on common attributes is refuted by the specifications own language. The specification defines a data cohort as “data aggregated together based on a common characteristic or set of characteristics ¶ 27, merely a category or group defined by shared attributes. Categorizing and grouping items based on shared characteristics is among the most common human cognitive activities. A human market researcher grouping customers by a shared attribute performs exactly the mapping operation described in the claim. The mapping step is perhaps the most direct example of organizing human commercial activity is its sole purpose is to create the organized data groupings that human business decision makers analyze and act upon. The mapping step adds no independent technical content beyond the aligning step, confirming that it is directed to the same abstract idea of the attirbute0based data grouping rather than to any distinct technical contribution. When a claimed function cannot be anchored to a specific technical implementation in the specification, the claim merely covers that function at the highest level of abstraction, encompassing any and all technical approaches to attribute mapping and cohort generation.
The applicant has argued “performing enrichment set analysis, using [[an]] the interaction data enrichment module and the analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module coupled to the interaction data enrichment module, on the second object and the data cohort using at least the another attribute implementing machine learning or deep learning algorithms to derive clustering of data as clustered data to determine proximity between the second object and the data cohort; • Humans do not "perform[] enrichment set analysis ... on the second object and the data cohort using at least the another attribute implementing machine learning or deep learning algorithms to derive clustering of data as clustered data to determine proximity and between the second object and the data cohort" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such performing is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such performing does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The performing step presents multiple compounding layers of abstract ideas. The addition of generic machine learning and deep learning language without specification of any particular algorithm, model architecture, or training methodology invokes AI at the highest level of abstraction without contributing technical specificity. The clustering to determine proximity between a second object and a data cohort lacks explicit specification support preventing it from being grounded in a technical disclosure. The clustering algorithms and proximity metrics are related to known techniques in machine learning. The fact that the claim performs enrichment using machine learning or deep learning algorithms rather than human cognition does not transform the abstract nature of the underlying analytical activity. The claim does not identify the type of ML model, the clustering algorithm, the deep learning architecture, or any other technical parameter that might distinguish the claimed use of ML from a generic instruction to apply AI to achieve the desired result. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the particular application of clustering and proximity determination to omnichannel customer interaction involves any non-conventional algorithmic technic.
The applicant has argued “generating, using an insights module and a discovery module coupled to the analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module, an output of the enrichment set analysis of the data cohort based on the clustered data, the output being an insight configured to be displayed on one or more interfaces, the output being used by an insight distribution module and the omnichannel data analysis engine to generate the one or more interfaces including a scoring dashboard and an insight tracking dashboard configured to visually render the insight determined by the omnichannel data analysis engine from at least one of the one or more data cohorts. • Humans do not "generat[ e] an output of the enrichment set analysis of the data cohort based on the clustered data" "to address sheer volume and incongruous data types, schemas, formats, and languages involved in communication transaction." • Such generating is not a routine conventional computer function. • Such generating does not organize human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating data is a known use of a computer. Using a general purpose computer to perform the steps of the invention does not overcome the previous 101 rejection. The applicant has claimed machine learning to perform an analysis at a high level. The claim does not identify the type of ML model, the clustering algorithm, the deep learning architecture, or any other technical parameter that might distinguish the claimed use of ML from a generic instruction to apply AI to achieve the desired result. The applicant has not provided any evidence that the particular application of clustering and proximity determination to omnichannel customer interaction involves any non-conventional algorithmic technic. The claimed technology is merely used in a conventional way to perform the steps of the invention.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the previous 101 is updated in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued that in Fig 1B the Interaction Data Enrichment Module coupled to an output of the Interaction Unification Module. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no explicit teaching or support of the coupling. It appears as though the applicant is merely inferring this relationship because the data enrichment module processes data after the unification module. Although the specification teaches the modules in sequence the enrichment module is not “coupled to an output” of the unification module. The previous 112(a), 1st paragraph rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous 103 rejections. The previous 103 rejection is withdrawn not based on one claimed limitation but in the combination of claimed limitations. Although the number of applied references does not directly lead to overcoming the prior art the combination of the known elements specifically, using an interaction unification module, wherein the ingestion pipeline module includes the interaction unification module and a data enrichment module coupled to an output of the interaction unification module and performing enrichment set analysis, using an interaction data enrichment module and the analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module coupled to the interaction data enrichment module, on the second object and the data cohort using at least the another attribute implementing machine learning or deep learning algorithms to derive clustering of data as clustered data to determine proximity between the second object and the data cohort and generating, using an insights module and a discovery module coupled to the analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module, an output of the enrichment set analysis of the data cohort based on the clustered data. The nature of combining references for achieving the claimed invention requires an unreasonable amount of effort.
The closest pertinent prior art includes Ayers et al. (US 20200293587 A1) which discloses an artificial intelligence (AI) based omnichannel communication system using machine learning and predictive analysis. Angell et al. (US 20090240513 A1) discloses a set of optimized subjects from a pool of available subjects is selected using the clustered cohort data and the set of selected dimensions. Angell et al. (US 20090024553 A1) discloses automatically selecting an optimal control cohort. Agarwal et al. (US 20130086116 A1) which discloses data integration workflows for execution on parallel processing platforms. Tortoriello et al. (US 20200265483 A1) which discloses dialogue and communications monitoring using artificial intelligence (AI) and analytics-based monitoring and machine learning. Adibi (US 20210124838 A1) which discloses a comprehensive repository of every single interaction with associated entities and features, and enables real-time analytics and data-driven business decision.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing data from data transactions over various communication channels. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-15 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites allowing for users to receiving data, manipulating data, analyzing data, configuring data, and generating an output of the data which is applied to customers and directed to analyzing commercial interactions and therefore is an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to a 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). Configuring data to conform to enterprise wise standards that govern how customer interaction data is processed stored, and used by organizational decision makers is a method of organizing commercial business activity and managing interactions between people with an enterprise context. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “receiving a sub-atomic interaction set … transforming from the sub-atomic interaction set from a first object to a second object the second object being associated with a data cohort; modifying an attribute associated with the second object to configure the second object to be used in sub-atomic interaction convergence; identifying a plurality of related interactions from the sub-atomic interaction set, the plurality of related interactions being combined into an atomic interaction associated with the second object; aligning a data attribute parsed from the atomic interaction to identify one or more interaction attributes from … the one or more interaction attributes being assigned a common attribute; configuring the data attribute to conform to a unified atomic interaction object definition; evaluating the atomic interaction and the data attribute, after being configured to conform to the unified atomic interaction object definition, to extract a portion of the second object, the portion being used to derive another attribute; mapping the data attribute to the atomic interaction to each other to generate one or more data cohorts based on the common attribute and an aligned data attribute; performing enrichment set analysis on the second object and the data cohort using at least the another attribute … derive clustering of data as clustered data to determine proximity between the second object and the data cohort; and generating an output of the enrichment set analysis of the data cohort based on the clustered data, the output being an insight … determined by the omnichannel data analysis engine from at least one of the one or more data cohorts.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “a client computing device,” and/or “computer readable medium” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a client computing device,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, but for the client computing device language, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving, manipulating and outputting data. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The steps of the claim are an abstract idea directed to “a mental process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 4, 8-15 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Independent claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “an omnichannel data analysis engine from a client computing device.. an ingestion pipeline model”, “an interaction unification module”, “data enrichment module”, ““the omnichannel data analysis engine”, “an analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module”, “definition, which identifies the structure and rules governing conformance of data attributes to each other, data storage schemas, and processing requirements for various elements of omnichannel data analysis engine “,“using an interaction data enrichment module and the analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module coupled to the interaction data enrichment module… using at least the another attribute implementing machine learning or deep learning algorithms”, “generating, using an insights module and a discovery module… an output of the enrichment set analysis of the data cohort based on the clustered data, the output being an insight configured to be displayed on one or more interfaces, the output being used by an insight distribution module and the omnichannel data analysis engine to generate the one or more interfaces including a scoring dashboard and an insight tracking dashboard configured to visually render the insight determined by the omnichannel data analysis engine from at least one of the one or more data cohorts.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 introduces the additional element of “wherein the first object and the second object are associated with an interaction on a media platform.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8-10 introduces the additional element of “the omnichannel data analysis engine comprises” various pipelines. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 11 introduces the additional element of “wherein the atomic interaction is stored in the second object.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “wherein the atomic interaction comprises a data transaction between the computing device and another computing device, the data transaction having a beginning data event and an end data event.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 introduces the additional element of “wherein the sub-atomic interaction set comprises an omnichannel data interaction.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the sub-atomic interaction set comprises digital data.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the sub-atomic interaction set comprises an audio signal configured to be analyzed to generate digital data.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Independent claim 1 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 is a method comprising “an omnichannel data analysis engine from a client computing device.. an ingestion pipeline model”, “an interaction unification module”, “data enrichment module”, ““the omnichannel data analysis engine”, “an analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module”, “definition, which identifies the structure and rules governing conformance of data attributes to each other, data storage schemas, and processing requirements for various elements of omnichannel data analysis engine “,“using an interaction data enrichment module and the analytics/artificial intelligence pipeline module coupled to the interaction data enrichment module… using at least the another attribute implementing machine learning or deep learning algorithms”, “generating, using an insights module and a discovery module… an output of the enrichment set analysis of the data cohort based on the clustered data, the output being an insight configured to be displayed on one or more interfaces, the output being used by an insight distribution module and the omnichannel data analysis engine to generate the one or more interfaces including a scoring dashboard and an insight tracking dashboard configured to visually render the insight determined by the omnichannel data analysis engine from at least one of the one or more data cohorts.
These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 4 introduces the additional element of “wherein the first object and the second object are associated with an interaction on a media platform.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 8-10 introduces the additional element of “the omnichannel data analysis engine comprises” various pipelines. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 11 introduces the additional element of “wherein the atomic interaction is stored in the second object.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 12 introduces the additional element of “wherein the atomic interaction comprises a data transaction between the computing device and another computing device, the data transaction having a beginning data event and an end data event.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 13 introduces the additional element of “wherein the sub-atomic interaction set comprises an omnichannel data interaction.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 14 introduces the additional element of “wherein the sub-atomic interaction set comprises digital data.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the sub-atomic interaction set comprises an audio signal configured to be analyzed to generate digital data.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-15, are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Therefore based on the above analysis as conducted based on MPEP 2106 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, does not provide significantly more, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant had previously amended in the limitation of a “the interaction unification module and a data enrichment module coupled to an output of the interaction unification module.” Although the examiner could locate support for a interaction unification module. The examiner could not locate support in the originally filed disclosure for “a data enrichment module coupled to an output of the interaction unification module.” Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims inherit the rejections of the claims from which they depend upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights