DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 03/24/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been 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 1-10 are directed towards a method, claims 11-16 are directed towards a computer-readable medium and claims 17-20 are directed towards a system, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including unifying a database Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 11, and 17) are directed to managing user experience, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1 A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of data sources, a plurality of data sets indicating experience data associated with one or more accounts and organization data associated with the one or more accounts, wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of data sets corresponds to a first format different from a second format corresponding to a second portion of the plurality of data sets;
identifying a metric with a high contribution to the account prioritization score;
determining, based on the metric with the high contribution to the account prioritization score, a key factor for the account prioritization score from the experience data associated with the account and the organization data associated with the account;
generating an explanation of the key factor comprising text describing a relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction such as behaviors and business relations; managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction and managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of database, device, GUI, (additional elements recited at: Claims 11 computer-readable medium, processor device, databases, GUI and 17 processor, computer-readable storage, database, device, GUI,). The claim recite the steps are performed by the database, device, GUI.
The limitations of
generating, utilizing the plurality of data sets, a unified database by reformatting at least the first portion of the plurality of data sets into a compatible format utilizing timestamp data to organize the experience data and the organization data;
generating an account prioritization score corresponding to an account utilizing the unified database that comprises experience data associated with the account and organization data associated with the account;
storing, in the unified database, the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor that comprises the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score, wherein the key factor, the account prioritization score, wherein the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor are co-located in a storage location of the unified database;
providing, from the storage location of the unified database and in response to a request from an administrator device, the account prioritization score and the explanation of the key factor via a graphical user interface that displays the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score.
are mere data gathering and processing recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by database, device, GUI. The database, device, GUI are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), database, device, GUI are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The database, device, GUI are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the database, device, GUI. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and processing.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
generating, utilizing the plurality of data sets, a unified database by reformatting at least the first portion of the plurality of data sets into a compatible format utilizing timestamp data to organize the experience data and the organization data;
generating an account prioritization score corresponding to an account utilizing the unified database that comprises experience data associated with the account and organization data associated with the account;
storing, in the unified database, the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor that comprises the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score, wherein the key factor, the account prioritization score, wherein the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor are co-located in a storage location of the unified database;
providing, from the storage location of the unified database and in response to a request from an administrator device, the account prioritization score and the explanation of the key factor via a graphical user interface that displays the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to storing and transmitting data are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a database, device, GUI to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-20 are not directed to any additional claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Page 9 of 13
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 03/24/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 11-18 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
Claim 1 A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of data sources, a plurality of data sets indicating experience data associated with one or more accounts and organization data associated with the one or more accounts, wherein at least a first portion of the plurality of data sets corresponds to a first format different from a second format corresponding to a second portion of the plurality of data sets;
generating, utilizing the plurality of data sets, a unified database by reformatting at least the first portion of the plurality of data sets into a compatible format utilizing timestamp data to organize the experience data and the organization data;
generating an account prioritization score corresponding to an account utilizing the unified database that comprises experience data associated with the account and organization data associated with the account;
identifying a metric with a high contribution to the account prioritization score;
determining, based on the metric with the high contribution to the account prioritization score, a key factor for the account prioritization score from the experience data associated with the account and the organization data associated with the account;
generating an explanation of the key factor comprising text describing a relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score;
storing, in the unified database, the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor that comprises the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score, wherein the key factor, the account prioritization score, wherein the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor are co-located in a storage location of the unified database;
providing, from the storage location of the unified database and in response to a request from an administrator device, the account prioritization score and the explanation of the key factor via a graphical user interface that displays the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Additionally, the Examiner did consider “Reminders Memo” and all examination falls in line with the memo.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing user experience, which constitutes methods related to commercial interaction such as behaviors and business relations; managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The computer processes are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 9-11 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the arguments of:
pg. 14“To illustrate, in one or more embodiments, the account prioritization system reformats various data from different systems and integrates the data into a single unified database utilizing timestamp data.”;
pg. 14-15“Moreover, the Specification also recites that "the account prioritization system 106 re-formats the data and organizes the data based on timestamps. Thus, the account prioritization system 106 can efficiently retrieve a variety of metrics, scores, and other data in order to generate account prioritization scores utilizing data from various disparate sources and systems." Id. at [0067].
By providing such improvements to computer capabilities and a technological field, the claims are integrated into a practical application and are thus patent eligible. For example, by generating a unified database by reformatting data sets with different data formats to a compatible format utilizing timestamp data, as more particularly recited by the amended independent claims above, the claimed features improve the computational efficiency, accuracy, and flexibility of computer devices by "reduc[ing] or eliminat[ing] excess time, navigational steps, and computing resources utilized by conventional systems in managing and navigating disparate systems." See, e.g., Specification at [0029]. Further, by storing the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor in the same storage location of the unified database, as more particularly cited by the amended independent claims above, the claimed features facilitate efficient retrieval for computing devices relative to conventional systems.”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing and organizing users data and not an improvement to the computer function or technical field, as well as, these citations from the spec. are more aspirational than something that is actually executable, as these elements are not clearly in the Applicant possessions or even described how these steps are processed..
The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those system elements aren't really utilized in any particular manner, and the specification indicates that at 0041: " the client device 102 can include any one of various types of client devices. For example, the client device 102 can be a mobile device (e.g., a smart phone), tablet, laptop computer, desktop computer, or any other type of computing device as further explained below with reference to FIG. 10 . Additionally, the client application 104 can include any one of various types of client applications. For example, the client application 104 can be a web browser, and a user at the client device 102 may enter a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or other address directing the web browser to access the account prioritization system 106 and/or the electronic survey system 110 on the server device(s) 108. Alternatively, the client application can be a native application installed and executed on the client device 102..”; 0144: “general-purpose computer including computer hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory, as discussed in greater detail below. Embodiments within the scope of the present disclosure also include physical and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures. In particular, one or more of the processes described herein can be implemented at least in part as instructions embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more computing devices (e.g., any of the media content access devices described herein). In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., a memory, etc.), and executes those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes, including one or more of the processes described herein”, which indicates the lack of particularity in the application to the technological environment.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which implementing services on behalf of a provider will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
At pg. 15 the Applicant argues similarity to Example 42.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of Example 42 as a whole, integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Examiner finds there are no comparable improvements here and Applicants pending claims recite additional elements at a high-level of generality such that they to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea.
Here, the present inventions generating a unified database by reformatting data sets, generating and storing an explanation of a key factor for an account prioritization score in the unified database, and providing the explanation for display via a graphical user interface, without reciting any improvement to the technology, computer-related technology or technological field. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
At page 17, Applicant argues claims are similar to Enfish.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish recited claims that asserted improvements in computer capabilities with sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, which shows the claimed invention made improvements in computer-related technology. In contrast, the present claims reciting generic computer elements to perform the functions of receiving, generating, identifying, determining, storing and providing analyzed data, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they perform generic computer functions.
Moreover, the evidence that Claim 1 represent the Abstract idea include:
receiving, from a plurality of data sources, a plurality of data sets indicating experience data associated with one or more accounts and organization data associated with the one or more accounts;
generating, utilizing the plurality of data sets, a unified database by reformatting at least a portion of the plurality of data sets;
generating an account prioritization score corresponding to an account utilizing the unified database that comprises experience data associated with the account and organization data associated with the account;
identifying a metric with a high contribution to the account prioritization score;
determining, based on the metric with the high contribution to the account prioritization score, a key factor for the account prioritization score from the experience data associated with the account and the organization data associated with the account;
generating an explanation of the key factor comprising text describing a relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score;
storing, in the unified database, the key factor, the account prioritization score, and the explanation of the key factor that comprises the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score;
providing, from the unified database and in response to a request from an administrator device, the account prioritization score and the explanation of the key factor via a graphical user interface that displays the text describing the relationship between the key factor and the account prioritization score.
Lastly, the Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations regarding receiving and generating for the managing of user experience data, which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions relating behaviors and business relations, as well as, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including teaching, and following rules or instructions) which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG.
At page 18, Applicant argues claims are similar to Core Wireless.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Core Wireless was found eligible not only because the claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices, but also because of the improvements to the user interface for electronic devices. Examiner finds the advancements disclosed in Core Wireless are not comparable the present claims. In particular, the combination of structural elements recited in the present claim are used to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional (e.g. multi-processor systems) of the original specification even states
Sec. 0149 “instructions and data which, when executed at a processor, cause a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions. In some embodiments, computer-executable instructions are executed on a general-purpose computer to turn the general-purpose computer into a special purpose computer implementing elements of the disclosure. The computer executable instructions can be, for example, binaries, intermediate format instructions such as assembly language, or even source code. Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the described features or acts described above. Rather, the described features and acts are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.”
Sec. 0150 " Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the disclosure can be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computer system configurations, including, personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, mobile telephones, PDAs, tablets, pagers, routers, switches, and the like. The disclosure can also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network, both perform tasks. In a distributed system environment, program modules can be located in both local and remote memory storage devices. "
Examiner finds, the present claims are more similar to concepts identified as abstract by the courts, such as sending, directing, monitoring receipt of, and accumulating records about information in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC as well as the case law recited in the Office Action, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perry et al., U.S. Pub. 20200294108, (discussing the analyzing of marketing data regarding customer relationship and experience).
Verma et al., W.O. Pub. 2022123302, (discussing the structuring and usage of customer relationship managing data in various environments).
Park et al., A Metaverse: Taxonomy, Components, Applications, And Open Challenges, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9667507, IEEE access, 2022 (discussing the monitoring of Metaverse and the various effects it has, which includes marketing and consumer experiences.).
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights