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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 8-9)
Claim 1 is not directed to ineligible subject matter at least because claim 1 is directed to an improvement to the operation of a computer.
First, the Specification provides "sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement." See MPEP § 2106.0S(a). Initially, Applicant explains that:
In one example embodiment, training data (e.g., historical data) for the model may not be comprehensive. For example, a new product or service may become available that is not sufficiently characterized by the training data. In this case, the model may erroneously rank the new product or service, or may be unable to rank the new product or service. For example, the model may simply rank the new product or service at the bottom of the ranking queue.
See Specification at ¶ 47. The Specification discloses various techniques for overcoming these shortcomings of the existing computing arrangements:
[A] special handling technique is proposed, such as the inclusion of an additional term for the linear function that is only applied to processing communications corresponding to the new product or service. In one example embodiment, the additional term is set equal to the median of all the coefficients for the corresponding input variable (e.g., the corresponding product, service, advertising channel, and the like). Regressions are then run on the training data using the revised linear function. If the communications corresponding to the new product or service are ranked near the aggregate mean of the model (such as within a predefined threshold of the aggregate mean), the special handling technique is accepted; otherwise, a modified special handling technique is proposed and the regression test is repeated.
Second, Applicant submits that the specific improvements to computing technology described by the Specification are also incorporated into the claim. For example, claim 1 recites:
training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function, the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users;
and
retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product, the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training;
In response
The claim invention is related to a method of selecting an incoming electronic communication to response based on a priority score. The process of choosing which incoming electronic communication to response is the process that can be performed in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, via observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. For example, the user can assign a higher priority score to a certain incoming call based on some factors such as the purchasing history of the person (buying lots of products), a wealthy person, etc.,
The Applicant argues that the claim limitations reflect an improvement discloses in the specification such as in paragraph 0047.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claim limitations of “the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function” and “executing the trained scoring model … the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine … a probability that the first user will purchase the second product” recite mathematical concept.
Second, the claim limitations do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer. The claim does not recite how the scoring model is trained or operated to implement the selecting process such that the scoring model is improved. For example, when a computer analyzing data in such a way to improve the computer function or to save computer resource then it is an improvement to the functioning of the computer, but if merely use of scoring model to perform the ranking and selecting an incoming electronic communication to generate response based on certain training data such as an additional term for the linear function, historical purchase data, is no different than reciting that the method is performed on a computer ("using a computer or other machinery as a tool"), an additional element which by MPEP 2106.05 (f) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, by using certain training data such as an additional term for the linear function, historical purchase data, etc., to train and retrain the scoring model to perform the selecting, at best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of “selecting an incoming electronic communication to response” rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology field, however, an improvement on the abstract idea is not consider an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
Applicant argues (page 10)
Third, Applicant submits that claim 1 covers a particular solution to a problem in a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.0S(a). For example, Applicant does not merely claim any way of retraining a model on-the-fly to apply to a new product. Instead, Applicant provides a particular retraining technique that includes, for example, "determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second a first product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training," among other features.
In response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Train and retrain a scoring model to determine something such as “determining an additional term” is this case, and use that additional term to determine a probability that the user will purchase a product do not provide an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
As mentioned above, the claim does not recite how the scoring model is trained or operated to implement the selecting process such that the scoring model is improved. The claim only recites using generic computer component (a scoring model) to generate the abstract idea (selecting an incoming electronic communication to response) based on certain training data (an additional term for the linear function, historical purchase data, …), thus, the solution of “selecting an incoming electronic communication to response” is the improvement on the abstract idea, which, as mentioned above, is not the improvement in the computer technology field.
Applicant argues (page 10)
Fourth, Applicant submits that the improvement disclosed and recited by claim 1 is not provided by the judicial exception alone. The Office indicates that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See Office Action at p. 4. Applicant submits that the features of claim 1 cannot be performed in the human mind and, therefore, are not directed to a mental process. Even if parts of claim 1 are attributable to a mental process, however, the improvement to the operation of the computer provided by claim 1 is not provided by any mental process alone, but instead are provided by the claim as a whole, which also recites using the retrained model to initiate, "a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user, the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score."
In response
As mentioned above and as stated in the 101 rejections section below, the claim limitations clearly recite an abstract idea since the claim reciting the step of “determining, by the hardware processor, a first priority score for the first incoming electronic communication”. This step is based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a user can the user assigns a score or a rank for the incoming call to determine if a response should be immediately generated for that call based on historical data.
And, the claim limitations of “the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function” and “executing the trained scoring model … the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine … a probability that the first user will purchase the second product” recite mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further, as mentioned above, train and retrain a model with certain data to perform a function of selecting a call to generate a response and transmit the response to the user of the call, do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer. The claim does not recite how the scoring model is trained or operated to implement the selecting process such that the scoring model is improved. The claim only recites using generic computer component (a scoring model) to generate the abstract idea (selecting an incoming electronic communication to response) based on certain training data (an additional term for the linear function, historical purchase data, …), thus, the solution of “selecting an incoming electronic communication to response” is the improvement on the abstract idea, which, as mentioned above, is not the improvement in the computer technology field.
Therefore, the claim limitations as a whole does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. A machine-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se, particularly when the specification is silent. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claims be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Claims 20-22 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim, namely claim 19.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training” recites a mathematical concept.
The limitation of “the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine an estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product, the estimated propensity describing a probability that the first user will purchase the second product” recites a mathematical concept. Also, the above limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines a probability such as 80% that the person will purchase a product based on a history purchasing of that person.
The limitation of “determining, by the hardware processor, a first priority score for the first incoming electronic communication”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigns a score or a rank for the incoming call to determine if a response should be immediately generated for that call.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or is a claim recites a mathematical concept, it will be considered as falling within the "mental process and/or mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a system”, “one or more hardware processors” and “a scoring model”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function”, “retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product” and “executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor”. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users”, “the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product” and “the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “accessing, by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user”, “accessing, by the hardware processor, lead information associated with the first user” and “initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a system”, “one or more hardware processors” and “a scoring model” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function”, “retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product” and “executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users”, “the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product” and “the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “accessing, by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user”, “accessing, by the hardware processor, lead information associated with the first user” and “initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determining an estimated income from the first user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determining if the caller is a wealthy person.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “the estimated income based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product and a value of a sale of the second product the first priority score being based at least in part on the estimated income from the first user”. These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the estimated income based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product and a value of a sale of the second product the first priority score being based at least in part on the estimated income from the first user” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “the value of the second product being at least one of a profit associated with a sale of the second product and a revenue associated with a sale of the second product”. This additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the value of the second product being at least one of a profit associated with a sale of the second product and a revenue associated with a sale of the second product” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “the trained scoring model including a term to rank a new product or a new advertising channel within a predefined range, the predefined range based on an aggregate mean priority score generated by the trained scoring model”. These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the trained scoring model including a term to rank a new product or a new advertising channel within a predefined range, the predefined range based on an aggregate mean priority score generated by the trained scoring model” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “combining the historical purchase data with second data describing a second product to generate the training data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “combining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generating certain data using other sets of data.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determining an advertising channel associated with the first incoming electronic communication based at least in part on an indicated recipient of the first incoming electronic communication”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying a channel advertising medium that made the caller to place the incoming call such as an online banner or other advertisement displayed on a webpage.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Indeed, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional element beside the limitation that can be performed in a human mind. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “accessing user identifier data describing the first user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user obtaining a name or an area code of the caller/user.
The limitation of “mapping the user identifier data to a location of the first user”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “mapping” in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying the location of the caller/user.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “the first priority score being based at least in part on the location of the first user”. This additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the first priority score being based at least in part on the location of the first user” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a system which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determining to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the first incoming electronic communication based at least in part on an available capacity of the lead scoring service when the first incoming electronic communication is received”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigning score/important level to the incoming call (phone, email, etc.,) that indicating if the call should be placed on hold.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of “the first priority score being determined by a lead scoring service executing at the one or more hardware processors”. This limitation is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of “the first priority score being determined by a lead scoring service executing at the one or more hardware processors” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A, prong 1:
The limitation of “the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training” recites a mathematical concept.
The limitation of “the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine an estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product, the estimated propensity describing a probability that the first user will purchase the second product” recites a mathematical concept. Also, the above limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines a probability such as 80% that the person will purchase a product based on a history purchasing of that person.
The limitation of “determining, the lead scoring service, a first priority score for the first incoming electronic communication”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the lead scoring service” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigns a score or a rank for the incoming call to determine is a response should be immediately generated.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or is a claim recites a mathematical concept, it will be considered as falling within the "mental process and/or mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a hardware processor”, “a scoring model” and “a lead scoring service”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “training, by a hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function”, “retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product” and “executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor”. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users”, “the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product” and “the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “accessing, by a lead scoring service executed by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user, the lead scoring service being executed by one or more hardware processor”, “accessing, by the lead scoring service, lead information associated with the first user” and “initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a hardware processor”, “a scoring model” and “a lead scoring service” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “training, by a hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function”, “retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product” and “executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users”, “the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product” and “the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of accessing, by a lead scoring service executed by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user, the lead scoring service being executed by one or more hardware processor”, “accessing, by the lead scoring service, lead information associated with the first user” and “initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 11 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 12 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 3, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 14 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 5, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 15 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 6, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 16 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 7, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 17 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 8, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 18 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 9, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a machine-readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function of trained scoring model for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training” recites a mathematical concept.
The limitation of “the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine an estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product, the estimated propensity describing a probability that the first user will purchase the second product” recites a mathematical concept. Also, the above limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines a probability such as 80% that the person will purchase a product based on a history purchasing of that person.
The limitation of “determining, by the hardware processor, a first priority score for the first incoming electronic communication”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “the hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user assigns a score or a rank for the incoming call to determine is a response should be immediately generated.
If a claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or is a claim recites a mathematical concept, it will be considered as falling within the "mental process and/or mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A machine-readable medium”, “one or more hardware processors” and “a scoring model”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function”, “retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product” and “executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor”. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users”, “the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product” and “the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “accessing, by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user”, “accessing, by the hardware processor, lead information associated with the first user” and “initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user” amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and transmitting which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A machine-readable medium”, “one or more hardware processors” and “a scoring model” to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function”, “retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product” and “executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users”, “the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product” and “the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “accessing, by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user”, “accessing, by the hardware processor, lead information associated with the first user” and “initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to insignificant extra-solution activities related to mere data gathering and transmitting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to receiving and transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Claim 20 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 21 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 3, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Claim 22 is being rejected by the same reason as of claim 5, since these claims recite the same limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 would be allowable if the 101 rejections above were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowable for disclosing
A system for selecting an incoming electronic communication for response, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors programmed to perform operations comprising:
training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function, the training data comprising historical purchase data describing historical purchases of the first product made by a plurality of users;
accessing, by the hardware processor, incoming communication data describing a first incoming electronic communication from a first user;
accessing, by the hardware processor, lead information associated with the first user;
retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product, the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training;
executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor, the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine an estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product, the estimated propensity describing a probability that the first user will purchase the second product;
determining, by the hardware processor, a first priority score for the first incoming electronic communication, the first priority score based at least in part on the estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product; and
initiating, by the hardware processor, a first outgoing electronic communication to a device associated with the first user, the initiating based at least in part on the first priority score.
The closest references found
Power (US Pub. 2004/0057570- Applicant provided reference) in abstract, paragraph 0050 teaches a system for prioritizing incoming calls by applying one or more business rules to the contact evaluation parameter to generate a priority value corresponding to the call, wherein, the contact evaluation parameter can be a number of transactions, purchase amount, etc. the system then determines the probability of the user will purchase a service or a product, assigns priority scores to the calls, ranking the incoming calls, and routes the call to the selected agent in the priority order.
Casas et al. (US Patent 8,775,230) in abstract, Cols. 6-7 teaches a process of using a trained model to determine a probability that the user will purchase the service and/or product.
Duncan et al. (US Pub. 2002/0141561) discloses a method for scheduling inbound inquires made by telephone or by other electronic messages. Duncan in paragraphs 0017-0018 teaches “The call evaluation sub-module uses algorithms and models provided by a modeling module that analyzes inbound call histories … performing logistic regression on prior inbound calls using caller and/or call information. Predictive variables for the logistic and linear regression equations may include call information such as the originating number or exchange, the originating location, the dialed number, the time of day and the likely purpose of the call”
Davis et al. (US Pub. 2008/0077487) discloses a method for determining product categories for which a consumer is likely to purchase using predictive analysis. Davis in paragraph 0033 teaches “the correlation function may be a linear equation consisting of a sum of terms, wherein each term is a coefficient multiplied by variable defining product or category purchase volume, for a set of categories. Each coefficient may represent the value of correlation of purchase of products in a non-target category to purchase of products in the target category. A sum of terms of such a correlation function is indicative of the likelihood that the consumer purchases in the target category”
However, the prior art of record do not teach or suggest, individually or in combination,
training, by the hardware processor, a scoring model using training data describing a first product to generate a trained scoring model comprising a first linear function;
retraining the trained scoring model, by the hardware processor, for a second product different than the first product, the retraining comprising determining an additional term for the first linear function for the second product, the additional term being based on a set of coefficients for the first linear function determined during the training;
executing the trained scoring model by the hardware processor, the executing being based at least in part on the lead information and the additional term to determine an estimated propensity of the first user to purchase the second product, the estimated propensity describing a probability that the first user will purchase the second product;
Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 is considered to be allowable because they are dependent on claim 1.
Claims 10 and 19 are considered to be allowable for disclosing the similar subject matter to claim 1.
Claims 11-12 and 14-18 are considered to be allowable because they are dependent on claim 10.
Claims 20-22 are considered to be allowable because they are dependent on claim 19.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Tumulty et al. (US Pub. 2002/0143661) describes a method for prioritizing customer inquiries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights