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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to applicant’s response filed 5/20/2026. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 6-16, and 19-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, stating these claims do not include certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims do not include interactions between users or interactions between users and the system and further does not recite mental processes because the processes of the claims such as updating a graphical object are impossible to perform in the human mind alone.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the mental process grouping is not relied upon in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below. As for certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims recite limitations involving determining the effectiveness of pharmaceutical representatives in interacting with healthcare providers (HCP) through monitoring the representative and determining an index score and engagement score, and using these scores to recommend interactions to the representatives (along with reason and suggestion text) that will enhance their effectiveness and interactions. This falls within the subgrouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the limitations collect data about interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and healthcare professionals, and determine and provide suggestions to those representatives about future interactions. These limitations also reasonably fall within the subgrouping of commercial or legal interaction of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors because the claim involves interactions between a representative and a HCP and providing suggestions, recommended interactions and reasons to the representative for further interactions.
As to the argument there is no interaction between users, it is noted that the data received and the recommended interaction involve interactions of a pharmaceutical representative and a healthcare provider. Further, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II., the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
Additionally, examiner disagrees that there is no interaction between users and the system. See explicitly limitations (i) and (k) where input is receiving from users, such as input causing application of a selectable tag and input accepting a recommended interaction. These are on the mobile device of the pharmaceutical representative. See in limitation (l) where interactions are transmitting to the mobile device of the healthcare provider.
Applicant further argues that the claims are patentable under Prong 2 because they integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application similar to Example 37 in the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 37 involves relocating icons on a graphical user interface, where the most used icons are automatically moved to a position on the GUI (such as near the start icon) based on the determined amount of use. This is not analogous to using a text editor and tags to annotate text on a computer or visually changing the graphical object that represents an index score on a display over time. It is noted the arguments do not provide specific reasons or analysis as to why the instance claims and example 37 are similar.
The claims are not merely "apply it" because the claims recite a combination of highly specific elements for, e.g., generating digital representations of text, generating virtual tags to annotate said text in a GUI of a computer, and for automatically updating graphical objects in a GUI that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As currently claimed, the combination of additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and an “apply it” manner. Examiner notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below, which affects the BRI and scope of independent claim limitation (h). Further, in terms of generating digital representations of text, the limitation in the claims involves displays reason text which may be annotated with suggestion text by selecting a tag (with a tag or token pointing to values of parameters or reference data connected to certain HCPs, per the specification [0089], [0090], [0092], [0095]). Similarly, for generating virtual tags to annotate said text in a GUI of a computer, the claim displays at least one tag, per the specification [0089], [0090], [0092], [0095]). Examiner would agree that there may be a path forward towards eligibility with respect to figures 17-19 and associated text if the 35 USC 112(a) issues can be resolved and further details can be incorporated into the claim, when considered with the further additional elements of the claim.
Applicant argues that the claimed systems and methods constitute an improvement in the field of computer technology (e.g., graphical user interfaces that allow a user in to graphically annotate text by selecting simultaneously displayed graphical objects) analogous to Core Wireless (an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application) as well as an improvement in another technical field (e.g., healthcare IT, providing improved GUIs for text processing and data analytics) analogous to Trading Technologies (specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner again notes the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below. As for the comparison to the Core Wireless decision, in Core Wireless the claims were directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices. The application summary window lists a limited set of data, each of the data being selectable to launch a respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application. The claim further recited that the summary window is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state. The specification disclosed a problem in the art related to the functioning of computers and confirms that these claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices. In the instant application, the specification does not describe a problem with the functioning of the computer and such an improvement is not reflected in the claim language.
As for the discussion of Trading Technologies, this instant application as currently claimed appears to be more similar to Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court determined that the claimed user interface provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. See MPEP 2016.05(a)I.&II. (Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).) In the instant application, the GUI uses tags or tokens to point to values of parameters or reference data connected to certain HCPs, per the specification [0089], [0090], [0092], [0095]. This information is retrieved and displayed using tags. See also the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection. This differs from Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential), where the claims required a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that addresses and resolves a specifically identified problem in the art and prevents order entry at a changed price.
Finally, Applicant argues that at step 2B that the claims are patentable because the various elements recited in the present claims are highly complex and go well beyond what was routine or conventional in the industry, such as the use of user-selectable tags to edit text in a graphical user interface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed below, as currently recited and based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, which affects the BRI, the claim is claimed at a high level of generality and merely uses the computer as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea. As for receiving input via the application or editor; displaying on a GUI of the mobile device; and the transmitting by an application over the network to the mobile device, these are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. They amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, and the court decisions in Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network in a generic manner is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, as is presenting offers. Versata also discusses the storing and retrieving of information in memory being well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-16, and 19-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 19, and 20 recite “the at least graphical object color coded according to tag category”, which appear to be missing a word and should more appropriately be --the at least one graphical object color coded according to tag category--. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6-16 and 21-23 depend from these claims and inherit the same deficiency.
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.
Claims 1, 6-16, and 19-23 are 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 claims 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the at least graphical object color coded according to tag category, and wherein a configuration of selectable tags of the reason text editor is determined based at least on the probability threshold”. However, the original disclosure does not support graphical objects being color coded according to tag category, or determining a configuration of selectable tags based at least on the probability threshold.
Tags and the text editor are generally disclosed in [0085]-[0095] and figures 17-18. The examiner is unable to find discussion of the at least graphical object color coded according to tag category, in these paragraphs or elsewhere. [0085] discusses a shaded number, but this is an indication on which day an engagement event is likely to occur. Further, while [0093] briefly discusses categories of tags or tokens, there is no disclosure of using these to color code.
Further, the specification does not provide support for a configuration of selectable tags of the reason text editor being determined based at least on the probability threshold. [0089], [0092]-[0095] discuss tokens and tags. In [0092], learning tokens and anchors are disclosed where learning tokens are tags with categories such as general and anchor, and tags can be embedded from different categories. Different configurations of the decision support engine can be applied to the reason text and the reason text editor may be optimized for different configurations of the decision support engine. Additionally, [0093] discusses channel condition tokens. See also figures 17 and 18. However, none of these areas of the specification or elsewhere disclose determining a configuration of tags based on a probability threshold. It is in [0087]-[0088] that the decision support engine may manually set a probability threshold for presentation of a trigger suggestion, but the trigger suggestion (which are suggestions that may be provided to reps) does not configure tags for selection.
Thus, the amendment of “the at least graphical object color coded according to tag category, and wherein a configuration of selectable tags of the reason text editor is determined based at least on the probability threshold” is considered new matter.
Claims 19 and 20 have substantially similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above. Claims 6-16, and 21-23 depend from the independent claims and inherit the same deficiencies. Thus, claims 1, 6-16, and 19-23 are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation " the analytical reason output." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-16, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite limitations involving determining the effectiveness of pharmaceutical representatives in interacting with healthcare providers (HCP) through monitoring the representative and determining an index score and engagement score, and using these scores to recommend interactions to the representatives (along with reason and suggestion text) that will enhance their effectiveness and interactions. Specifically, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following limitations that are abstract ideas:
(a) receiving data associated with a plurality of informational interactions between (i) a plurality of pharmaceutical representatives and (ii) the HCP, wherein the informational interactions are used to inform the HCP about a pharmaceutical;
(b) logging the data comprising an action by each HCP in response to receiving the plurality of informational interactions, wherein the logging comprises monitoring for the action on a predefined time interval, and wherein the action comprises acknowledging, accepting, ignoring, or declining each informational interaction;
(c) responsive to the monitoring, determining an index score for each pharmaceutical representative, wherein the determining comprises:
(i) processing the data to determine a plurality of components of each index score, wherein the plurality of components comprises historical interaction data, historical suggestion data, or both;
(ii) applying a plurality of weights and standardizations to the plurality of components to generate a plurality of metrics; and
(iii) aggregating the plurality of metrics to generate each index score, wherein each index score is indicative of an effectiveness of each pharmaceutical representative in communicating the pharmaceutical information to the HCP;
(d) generating, by a model, an engagement score for each pharmaceutical representative based at least on inputting the index score for each pharmaceutical representative into the model, wherein the model uses each engagement score to determine a recommended interaction with a probability threshold between each pharmaceutical representative and the HCP for communicating the pharmaceutical information;
(e) selecting a pharmaceutical representative of the plurality of pharmaceutical representatives, based at least on ranking the engagement scores of the plurality of pharmaceutical representatives;
(f) responsive to triggering the probability threshold, generating a reason text for the recommended interaction to display to the selected pharmaceutical representative, wherein the reason text comprises (i) an artificial intelligence-driven reason text or (ii) a personalized reason text;
(g) automatically generating at least one selectable tag;
(h) displaying the reason text, wherein displaying the reason text comprises at least one selectable tag for automatically applying suggestion text to the reason text, color coded according to tag category, and wherein a configuration of selectable tags is determined based at least on the probability threshold and communicating the pharmaceutical information on an interval of the predefined time interval;
(i) receiving input causing the at least one selectable tag to be applied to the reason text thereby annotating the reason text with the suggestion text;
(j) [providing] the reason text with the suggestion text to the selected pharmaceutical representative, to allow the selected pharmaceutical representative to accept or dismiss the recommended interaction;
(k) receiving input accepting the recommended interaction;
(l) transmitting, using the recommended interaction, the pharmaceutical information of the HCP at the interval of the predefined time interval; and
(m) updating the index score (i) as new data is being obtained or (ii) on the predefined time interval, displaying the index score of the selected pharmaceutical representative, and visually changing the graphic over time as the index score is being updated.
These recited limitations reasonable fall within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. They fall within the subgrouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, because the limitations collect data about interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and healthcare professionals, and determine and provide suggestions to those representatives to coach and instruct and make recommendations on future interactions. These limitations also reasonably fall within the subgrouping of commercial or legal interaction of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors because the claim involves interactions in the relationship of a representative and a HCP and providing suggestions, recommended interactions and reasons to the representative for further interactions.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of: a network, wherein the network is in communication with mobile devices of the plurality of parties and wherein the network comprises one or more processors that execute an application stored in memory on the network; logging, determining, selecting, generating, receiving and updating “by the application”; generating, by the application comprising a trained machine learning (ML) model and inputting into the trained ML model; displaying, on a text editor of a GUI of a mobile device of a user, causing the editor of the GUI to display at least one user-selectable graphical object for automatically applying; at least one graphical object; receiving, from the text editor, input; displaying on a GUI of the mobile device; transmitting by an application over the network to the mobile device; and updating, by the application, … displaying a graphical object in the GUI.
These additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. When considering the claim as a whole and the additional elements alone and in combination, the network being able to communicate with mobile devices of the plurality of parties and comprising one or more processors that execute an application stored in memory on the network, displaying on GUI (or a text editor of a GUI) of a mobile device selectable graphical objects, text, or inputs; and transmitting by an application over the network to the mobile device, these are all used in their ordinary capacity (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) and invoked as tools to perform the recited process (abstract idea) of monitoring and recommending interactions of pharmaceutical representatives and healthcare providers. Further, the logging, determining, selecting, generating, receiving and updating “by the application” do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" and are claims as mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As for the at least one user-selectable graphical object for automatically applying, these again are claimed at a high level of generality and the claim does not recite details of how the automatic application is accomplished. Although the claims states that selection of the graphical object causes automatic application of text, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps are undertaken or any of the details of how the automatic application is accomplished.
As for the generating by an application comprising a trained machine learning (ML) model and inputting into the trained ML model, this is recited at a high level of generality and provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Here the trained ML model amounts to the idea of a solution without reciting the details of how the solution is accomplished. The limitation only recites the outcome of generating an engagement score based on input, but does not include any of the details on how the generating is accomplished.
Finally, in addition to being recited a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the recited abstract idea on a computer, the receiving, from the text editor or the application, input; displaying on a GUI of the mobile device; and the transmitting by an application over the network to the mobile device are also viewed to be insignificant extrasolution activity. These aspects amount to necessary data gathering and outputting.
Claim 19 further includes a server in communication with a plurality of data sources; a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the server, cause the server to perform operations and claim 20 further includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a server, cause the server to perform operations for
communicating pharmaceutical information over a network. These additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, as discussed above.
In summary, when considering the claim as a whole and the additional elements alone and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, for the receiving, from the text editor or the application, input; displaying on a GUI of the mobile device; and the transmitting by an application over the network to the mobile device that were considered insignificant extrasolution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not indicate that the text editor, the application, the GUI or the network are anything more than general computer components. The decisions in Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network in a generic manner is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, as is presenting offers. Versata also discusses the storing and retrieving of information in memory being well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6-15, 21-23 further narrow the recited abstract idea discussed with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
As for claim 16, claim 16 further narrows the recited abstract idea discussed with respect to claims 1, 6-8 and 13. Claim 16 further include “automatically generated by the trained ML model, and wherein the trained ML model is configured to…” The use of the ML model here is recited at a high level of generality and provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Automatically generating by the ML model amounts to the idea of a solution without reciting the details of how the solution is accomplished. The limitation only recites the outcome of generating, but does not include any of the details on how the generating is accomplished. Therefore, when considering claim 16 as a whole and the additional elements alone and in combination, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1, 6-16, and 19-23 are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights