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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 18, 2025 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 09/18/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 14, 16 and 17 have been amended. Claims 2, 6, 9, 10,12, 13, 15, 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16-18 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant argues, “Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 14 include a number of actions that can't be practically performed in the human mind, including for example, "performing matrix factorization to iteratively learn, based on the base interaction matrix and the static matrix, an approximated interaction matrix that includes the predictions for the dynamic variable values." Applicant thus submits that the present claims do not recite a judicial exception and are not directed to an abstract idea, and are patent eligible under Step 2A Prong One.” (pgs. 10-11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to sales behaviors. For example, collecting temporal action data, transforming the collected data, organizing dynamic variables and predicting dynamic variables for milestone subsets, storing organized milestones, predicting dynamic variable values, determining communications, etc. involves sales and marketing behaviors (Spec see ¶0003). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Further, the claims encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations (e.g. matrix factorization).
Applicant argues, “These are technical operations that solve a technical problem: how to predict milestone-related communications actions using structured and temporal data. The claims are not directed to mental steps or organizing human activity; they are directed to solving a technical problem using a technical solution.” (pg. 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR Holdings the court found that the claims recite a specific way to automate the creation of composite Web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by web sites on the internet, where the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Unlike DDR, the instant application focuses on collecting temporal data for electronic communications, transforming temporal data to compute dynamic variables, organizing dynamic variable values into milestone subsets, predicting dynamic variables based on static/base matrices, determining a set of one or more communications, predicting dynamic variable values using matrix factorization to learn an approximated interaction matrix performed by generic computer components (a processor). This functionality demonstrates abstract concepts (e.g. collecting and analyzing data including complex mathematics). The various matrices and matrix factorizations are a tool to implement the abstract idea at the ‘apply it’ level. Nothing in the claims or Specification provides support for an improvement in a technology or a technical field. Here, predicting milestone related communication actions is not considered a technically driven problem or a technical field. The claims may provide a better way (an improved process) to provide a set of electronic communications, but does not necessarily demonstrate a technical solution to a technological problem.
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, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
storing, in an electronic storage, a static matrix specifying respective static attribute values for each of a plurality of historic opportunities and a current opportunity;
collecting temporal data, using automated data collection, for electronic communications actions performed using [one or more computer systems] in respect of the plurality of historic opportunities and the current opportunity;
transforming the collected temporal data to compute, for each of the plurality of historic opportunities, a respective set of dynamic variable values based on the electronic communications actions performed for the respective historic opportunity;
organizing the dynamic variable values into milestone subsets, which each milestone subset is associated with respective predefined target milestone of a reference opportunity timeline comprising a sequence of target milestones;
storing the organized milestone subsets in an electronic storage as part of a base interaction matrix for the plurality of historic opportunities;
predicting
determining a set of one or more electronic communications actions required to achieve target milestones associated with the milestone subsets for the current opportunity, based on the predicted variable values;
outputting a recommendation comprising the set of one or more electronic communications actions…
predicting the dynamic variable values for the milestone subsets of the current opportunity comprises performing matrix factorization to iteratively learn, based on the base interaction matrix and the static matrix, an approximated interaction matrix that includes the predictions for the dynamic variable values.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity related to sales and marketing behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, collecting temporal action data, transforming the collected data, organizing dynamic variables and predicting dynamic variables for milestone subsets, storing organized milestones, predicting dynamic variable values, determining communications, etc. involves sales and marketing behaviors (Spec see ¶0003) . Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations (e.g. matrix factorization).
Independent Claim 14 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 3 is directed to outputting recommendations, Claim 4 is related to selecting a current target milestone, predicting milestone dynamic variables, determining a milestone specific communications and outputting recommendations, Claim 5 is directed to performing NLP, Claim 7 is directed to performance scores, Claim 8 is directed to communication actions, Claim 11 is directed to performance scores,. Claims 16-18 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 3-5 and encompass the same abstract ideas.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of one or more processors and an electronic storage. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory digital storage operatively coupled to one or more processors and an electronic storage. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0154-¶0155).
For instance, the step of storing in a static matrix a set of static variables is generic storing functionality. The step of collecting temporal data is data gathering activity. The steps of transforming the collected temporal data (data manipulation) and predicting a set of dynamic variables involve data analysis. The step of outputting a recommendation is generic display functionality. The steps of the static matrix comprises rows and columns and base interaction matrix comprises a data structure of rows and columns and further provides details of values within the data structures is generic database storing functionality. The step of predicting the dynamic variables for the milestone subsets by performing matrix factorization to iteratively learn based on base interaction matrix and static matrix an approximated interaction matrix involves analyzing data using complex mathematics. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of an electronic storage, processor, ad a CRM are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions (e.g. storing, collecting, transforming, organizing , predicting, etc.) that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16-18 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Aki et al. (US 2017/0116554) discloses the values inside the matrix represent a confidence score that indicates how likely a given user is interested in taking or consuming a given asset (e.g., course, learning material). The matrix with confidence scores may be generated based on historical data associated with characteristics of users who have taken the courses. The algorithm in one embodiment factorizes the matrix into two matrices for example, using a matrix factorization technique.
Borodow et al. (US 2015/0154524) discloses algorithms that uses the canonical vector base to build a multi-dimensional decision matrix. The matrix represents a set of closed opportunities for which the ultimate historical results in term of loss or won outcomes are known. A given matrix will include only opportunities that the system determines to be similar from a given perspective, which is correlated to a customizable set of data attributes.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Eric Stamber can be reached at 571-272-6724.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683