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
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 04/29/2026.
Claim 5 has been amended. Claims 2, 6, 9, 10,12, 13, 15, 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16-18 and 21-24 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant argues, “ Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims as a whole are not directed merely to a human sales practice. A human may pursue sales opportunities, but the claims are not directed to the commercial objective in the abstract.” (pg. 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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-¶0004). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Further, the claims encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical
calculations (e.g. matrix factorization).
Applicant argues, “ …under Step 2A, Prong Two, any alleged mathematical concept is integrated into a practical application.” (pg. 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of recites the additional elements of one or more processors, electronic storage and a non-transitory digital storage.
These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶154-¶155).
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 and organizing the dynamic variable values into milestone subsets where each milestone subset is associated with a predefined target milestone (data manipulation) involves analyzing data. 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. 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.
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.
Applicant argues, “ Enfish and McRO, as summarized in MPEP §2106.06(b), because the claims recite a particular implementation that improves how the computer system structures, completes, and uses sparse opportunity-interaction data to generate recommendation outputs.” (pg. 11)
Examiner notes that Applicant has not shown sufficient support in the Claims or the Specification to demonstrate an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or a technical field. The claims appear to be directed to an improved business process to provide recommended electronic communication actions, which does not provide for an improvement in a technology or technical field.
Applicant argues, “ The specification confirms that the claimed architecture addresses a computer-implemented data-processing problem rather than merely computerizing conventional sales advice.”
The claims are directed to 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., performed by generic computer components. This is not reflective of a solution to a technological problem.
As previously stated there is not support in the claims or Specification of an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues, “ Claim 5 requires a computer-implemented semantic-content processing mechanism that applies NLP to electronic communication content to detect milestone occurrence and control milestone-specific prediction and recommendation processing. This additional limitation further integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo framework.” (pg. 12)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 5 is directed to using NLP to determine semantic meaning of language content represented as one or more numeric tensors, which is considered data manipulation (e.g. analyzing data). As such Claim 5 further narrows the abstract concepts, but does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Applicant argues, “The claims impose meaningful limits on any mathematical analysis by tying the matrix-based prediction to a concrete upstream technical architecture that automatically ingests temporal communication-event data from enterprise communication systems and automatically detects milestone occurrences using NLP-generated vector embeddings.” (pg. 14)
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.
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 and 21-24 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, Claim 21 is directed to a connector configured to interact with at least one mail server, a VIOP system, PIM module and extract information regarding events (data gathering) and Claim 23 is directed to dynamic variable values comprising performance scores (analysis). Claims 16-18, 22 and 24 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 3-5, 21 and 23 and encompass the same abstract ideas. 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 and 21-24 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Hudson (US 2021/0374831) discloses data collection including an opportunity pattern operation that is configured to generate a respective opportunity pattern for each opportunity. The opportunity patterns are intended to allow similar opportunities to be identified based on an ordered set (e.g., a feature vector FV) of the static variables of the opportunities and the accounts that the opportunities are associated with.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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 3625
Prosecution Insights