DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026, has been entered.
In the response filed January 12, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 10, 22, and 31; and canceled claim 43. Claims 1-4, 6-25, and 27-42 are pending in the current application. Claims 18-21 and 39-42 remain withdrawn and claims 1-4, 6-17, 22-25, and 27-38, are currently examined.
Notice of 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 11, 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the application on July 19, 2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant requests rejoinder of withdrawn claims 18-21 and 39-42 by virtue of the amendments. This is not found persuasive because the invention I, claims 1-17 and 22-38, is drawn to a product of manufacture and a process for training a sentiment model to classify user input to add to a graph data structure to estimate a churn probability of a user and claims 18-21 and 39-42, is drawn to a product of manufacture and a process for updating a reinforcement model for selection and implementing retention action for a particular customer. Claims 18-21 and 39-42 remain withdrawn and the restriction is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-4, 6-17, 22-25, and 27-38, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues the claims are similar to the claims in Enfish as they are a technical process for updating a “specific data structure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claim limitations “update at least one node of the one or more second nodes to include the vector embedding that represents the at least one input;” and “update, responsive to classification of the at least one input, the graph data structure to include at least one third node that (i) represents the at least one input as having the classification of the at least one sentiment and (ii) is connected to the at least one node;” are part of an abstract idea that describe or set-forth receiving graph data structures and training a sentiment model and a churn model with the graph data structures and vector embeddings and executing the sentiment model and churn model, which amounts to mathematical calculations. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The updating of the graph data structures are a part of the abstract idea identified above and are incorporated into the subject matter grouping of “mathematical concepts.” Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claim limitations “receive a graph data structure storing one or more sets of data associated with activity of one or more entities,” and “generate a vector embedding to represent the at least one input within the graph data structure;” are a part of the abstract idea that describes or sets-forth receiving graph data structures and training a sentiment model and a churn model with the graph data structures and vector embeddings and executing the sentiment model and churn model, which amounts to mathematical calculations. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The receiving of the graph data structures and generation of vector embeddings are a part of the abstract idea identified above and are incorporated into the subject matter grouping of “mathematical concepts.” Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are directed to a practical application of the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above, the claim limitations “update at least one node of the one or more second nodes to include the vector embedding that represents the at least one input;” is a part of an abstract idea that describe or set-forth receiving graph data structures and training a sentiment model and a churn model with the graph data structures and vector embeddings and executing the sentiment model and churn model, which amounts to mathematical calculations. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “establish, via a communication network, communication with a display device to trigger implementation of the action by the display device, wherein implementation of the action includes generation and display, by the display device, of a user interface configured to (i) provide one or more first sets of information and (ii) receive one or more second sets of information,” (claims 1 and 22), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 1-4, 6-17, 22-25, and 27-38, 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.
Step 1: Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are drawn to a process of manufacture and claims 22-25 and 27-38 are drawn to a process, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claim 22) recites/describes the following steps:
“detect, based on one or more interactions …, at least one input associated with at least one entity of the one or more entities;”
“…estimate a churn probability for the at least one entity, …and estimate, based at least on the one or more outputs, the churn probability;” and
“select, from a plurality of actions, an action based at least on one or more relationships between the action, the at least one node of the one or more second nodes, and the churn probability…;”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth estimating a churn probability and selecting an action based on detected interactions, which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 (representative of claim 22) also recites/describes the following steps:
“receive a graph data structure storing one or more sets of data associated with activity of one or more entities, the graph data structure comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein the plurality of nodes comprise: one or more first nodes to represent the one or more entities; and one or more second nodes, connected with the one or more first nodes, to represent first data of the one or more sets of data associated with the one or more entities;”
“generate a vector embedding to represent the at least one input within the graph data structure;”
“update at least one node of the one or more second nodes to include the vector embedding that represents the at least one input;”
“using a plurality of historical inputs, train a sentiment model to classify the at least one input according to one or more sentiments of a plurality of sentiments;”
“classify, using the trained sentiment model and the vector embedding that represents the at least one input, the at least one input as at least one sentiment of the plurality of sentiments;”
“update, responsive to classification of the at least one input, the graph data structure to include at least one third node that (i) represents the at least one input as having the classification of the at least one sentiment and (ii) is connected to the at least one node;”
“using the graph data structure, train a churn model to estimate churn probabilities;”
“execute the churn model… wherein execution of the churn model includes the computer to: aggregate one or more outputs from one or more layers of the churn model;”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth receiving graph data structures and training a sentiment model and a churn model with the graph data structures and vector embeddings and executing the sentiment model and churn model, which amounts to mathematical calculations. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 2-4, 6-17, 23-25, and 27-38, likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “a computer,” (claim 1); “one or more processing circuits,” (claim 22); “a computing device and an interface,” “a sentiment model…the sentiment model comprises a plurality of artificial intelligence models,” “establish, via a communication network, communication with a display device to trigger implementation of the action by the display device, wherein implementation of the action includes generation and display, by the display device, of a user interface configured to (i) provide one or more first sets of information and (ii) receive one or more second sets of information,” (claims 1 and 22).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a natural language processing model,” (claims 2 and 23); “a relational database,” (claims 3 and 24); “a second client,” (claims 8 and 29); “a plurality of graph convolution neural networks that are arranged in a series,” (claims 13 and 34); “a reinforcement model,” “one or more clients,” (claims 14 and 35).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “a computer,” (claim 1); “one or more processing circuits,” (claim 22); “a computing device and an interface,” “a sentiment model…the sentiment model comprises a plurality of artificial intelligence models,” “establish, via a communication network, communication with a display device to trigger implementation of the action by the display device, wherein implementation of the action includes generation and display, by the display device, of a user interface configured to (i) provide one or more first sets of information and (ii) receive one or more second sets of information,” (claims 1 and 22); “a natural language processing model,” (claims 2 and 23); “a relational database,” (claims 3 and 24); “a second client,” (claims 8 and 29); “a plurality of graph convolution neural networks that are arranged in a series,” (claims 13 and 34); “a reinforcement model,” “one or more clients,” (claims 14 and 35), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, 25-28, 30-33, and 36-38, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “a computer,” (claim 1); “one or more processing circuits,” (claim 22); “a computing device and an interface,” “a sentiment model…the sentiment model comprises a plurality of artificial intelligence models,” “establish, via a communication network, communication with a display device to trigger implementation of the action by the display device, wherein implementation of the action includes generation and display, by the display device, of a user interface configured to (i) provide one or more first sets of information and (ii) receive one or more second sets of information,” (claims 1 and 22); “a natural language processing model,” (claims 2 and 23); “a relational database,” (claims 3 and 24); “a second client,” (claims 8 and 29); “a plurality of graph convolution neural networks that are arranged in a series,” (claims 13 and 34); “a reinforcement model,” “one or more clients,” (claims 14 and 35), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 4-6, 9-12, 15-17, 25-28, 30-33, and 36-38, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-17, 22-25, and 27-38, would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The reasons for allowable subject matter regarding claims 1-4, 6-17, 22-25, and 27-38, were identified in the Office action mailed September 11, 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628