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 . Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/313,512 filed on 2/24/2022.
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, U.S. Provisional application No. 63/313,512 (hereinafter “the ‘512 provisional application”) fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Independent claims 1, 14 and 15 each recite, inter alia, “generating a training dataset that includes multiple training samples, each training sample mapping at least one extracted feature of a particular communication to a metric indicative of progress of a sales process; and training a machine learning model using the training dataset to generate a trained model that accepts as input, features extracted from a run-time communication associated with the sales process, and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process.”
The as-filed specification of the ‘512 provisional application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least these elements of claims 1 and 14-15. That is, the as-filed specification of the ‘512 provisional application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted generating and training steps/operations.
For example, the ‘512 provisional is silent regarding any “generating a training dataset” and then “training a machine learning model using the training dataset” as recited in claims 1 and 14-15.
Thus, the as-filed specification of the ‘512 provisional application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted elements of claims 1 and 14-15. Based on their respective dependencies from independent claim, the specification of the ‘512 provisional application also fails to provide adequate support or enablement for dependent claims 2-13.
Therefore, the effective filing date for claims 1-15 of the instant application is the filing date of the instant application, 2/17/2023. Examiner will consider if the ‘512 provisional application supports each of the other claims if a rejection would need to rely upon an intervening reference between the actual filing date of the instant application, 2/17/2023, and the 2/24/2022 filing of the ‘512 provisional application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 17, line 2, “trained ML models recommendations” should be “trained ML models’ recommendations” if models are plural or “trained ML model’s recommendations” if singular.
In ¶ 70, line 1, “a vectors” should be “a vector”.
In ¶ 76, line 3, “one or more of a network interface devices” should be “one or more network interface devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 are method type claims, corresponding to a process. Claim 14 is directed to a system corresponding to a machine. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, corresponding to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-15 are directed to either a process, a machine, or an article of manufacture.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
extracting, from the plurality of communications, one or more features for each communication in the plurality of communications based on a pre-generated taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually track and extract one or more features from the plurality of communications in the mind - nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper);
generating a training dataset that includes multiple training samples, each training sample mapping at least one extracted feature of a particular communication to a metric indicative of progress of a sales process (mental process of judgment – a user can generate a training dataset with multiple samples that map a feature of a common to a metric indicating progress of a sale in the mind or with pen and paper);
accepts as input, features extracted from a run-time communication associated with the sales process and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process (mental process of opinion or judgement – a user can manually track and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process in the mind)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
training a machine learning model using the training dataset (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)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements at a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (This step is directed to obtaining a plurality of communications, which is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
training a machine learning model using the training dataset (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)).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1:
The claim recites: wherein extracting the one or more features includes detecting one or more keywords conforming to the taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually track and extract one or more features detecting one or more including detecting one or more keywords conforming to the taxonomy in the mind or with pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1:
The claim recites: wherein generating the training dataset further comprises computing, based on each communication, a score or a label indicating a quality of the communication (mental process of judgment or evaluation– a user can compute, based on each observed communication, a score or a label indicating a quality of the communication. in the mind or with pen and paper);
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1:
the claim recites the additional elements of “wherein training the machine learning model further comprises classifying a particular communication as beneficial or detrimental to the progress of the sales process” (mental process of judgment or evaluation– a user can classify a particular communication in the mind or with pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1:
The claim recites: extracting, from the run-time communication, at least one feature conforming to the taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually extract at least one feature conforming to the taxonomy, this can be done mentally or by pen and paper);
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
receiving, the run-time communication associated with the sales process (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
providing the extracted at least one feature to the trained model (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
obtaining, from the trained model, the suggested follow-up communication likely to improve the progress of the sales process. This step is directed to obtaining a plurality of communications, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
providing the extracted at least one feature to the trained model and receiving, the run-time communication associated with the sales process (providing the extracted feature data to the model and receiving, the run-time communication associated with the sales process is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network – see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
obtaining, from the trained model, the suggested follow-up communication likely to improve the progress of the sales process. (This step is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network – see MPEP 2106.05(d));
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: Claim 6 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the suggested follow-up communication is displayed on a user-interface presented to a BDR participating in a sales pitch with a potential customer (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and necessary data outputting - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the suggested follow-up communication is displayed on a user-interface presented to a BDR participating in a sales pitch with a potential customer (This step is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of presenting offer and statistics – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (citing OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93));
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 1:
wherein training the machine learning model further comprises contextualizing the training samples based on data from one or more sources (mental process of evaluation/judgment or opinion – a user can manually track and contextualize the training samples based on observed data from one or more sources, this can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 1: Claim 8 is directed to a method as depending from claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of claim 7 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the one or more sources comprise a semantic graph database storing information internal to an organization associated with the BDR (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions... Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “wherein the one or more sources comprise a semantic graph database storing information internal to an organization associated with the BDR” are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing information in memory (i.e., the generically-recited graph database), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1: Claim 9 is directed to a method as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claims 7-8 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the semantic graph database stores information obtained from servers external with respect to the organization associated with the BDR (This step is directed to receiving and storing information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions... Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, recitations of “the semantic graph database stores information obtained from servers external with respect to the organization associated with the BDR” are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing information in memory (i.e., the generically-recited graph database), as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1:
wherein mapping the at least one extracted feature comprises generating a vector indicative of the progress of the sales process. (mental process of evaluation/judgment/opinion – a user can manually track and map at least one extracted feature and generate/create a vector indicative of the progress of the sales process, this can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 1:
wherein generating the vector comprises encoding the at least one extracted feature as structured data in the vector (mental process of evaluation – a user can manually encode the one or more features based on the observed features and the pre-generated taxonomy, this can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 1:
wherein extracting the one or more features includes detecting one or more keywords conforming to the taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually extract the one or more features and detect keywords conforming to on the taxonomy, this can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 1:
wherein extracting the one or more features includes detecting one or more keywords conforming to the taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually track and extract one or more features based on a pre-generated taxonomy comprises identifying a decision maker associated with the potential customer, this can be done mentally or by pen and paper).
2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1:
extracting, from the plurality of communications, one or more features for each communication in the plurality of communications based on a pre-generated taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually track and extract one or more features from the plurality of communications in the mind - nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper);
generating a training dataset that includes multiple training samples, each training sample mapping at least one extracted feature of a particular communication to a metric indicative of progress of a sales process (mental process of judgment – a user can generate a training dataset with multiple samples that map a feature of a common to a metric indicating progress of a sale in the mind or with pen and paper);
accepts as input, features extracted from a run-time communication associated with the sales process and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process (mental process of opinion or judgement – a user can manually track and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process in the mind)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A system, comprising: one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising (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)).
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
training a machine learning model using the training dataset (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)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements at a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A system, comprising: one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising (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)).
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (This step is directed to obtaining a plurality of communications, which is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
training a machine learning model using the training dataset (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)).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 1:
extracting, from the plurality of communications, one or more features for each communication in the plurality of communications based on a pre-generated taxonomy (mental process of judgment – a user can manually track and extract one or more features from the plurality of communications in the mind - nothing in the claim prohibits this process from being performed mentally or with pen and paper);
generating a training dataset that includes multiple training samples, each training sample mapping at least one extracted feature of a particular communication to a metric indicative of progress of a sales process (mental process of judgment – a user can generate a training dataset with multiple samples that map a feature of a common to a metric indicating progress of a sale in the mind or with pen and paper);
accepts as input, features extracted from a run-time communication associated with the sales process and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process (mental process of opinion or judgement – a user can manually track and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process in the mind)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that, when executed by one or more data processing apparatus, cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising (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)).
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering - see MPEP 2106.05(g));
training a machine learning model using the training dataset (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)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements at a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that, when executed by one or more data processing apparatus, cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising (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)).
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (This step is directed to obtaining a plurality of communications, which is well understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting and receiving data as identified by the court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i));
training a machine learning model using the training dataset (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)).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC §. 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pat et al (US 2024/0202096 A1, hereinafter "Pat1") in view of Kewalramani et al. (US 2022/0383125 A1, hereinafter "Kewalramani").
Regarding claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Pat discloses the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of communications, each communication in the plurality of communications representing one of: a phone conversation transcript, an email, or a chat transcript between a business development representative (BDR) and a potential customer (see, e.g., ¶ 38, “The analytics module 250 also may have access to … interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and … interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department” [i.e., access/obtain communications/interactions representing audio/phone and chat transcripts between an agent/BDR and customer]);
extracting, from the plurality of communications, one or more features for each communication in the plurality of communications (see, e.g., ¶¶ 38-39, “access to … data related to interactions and interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and events detected therein), interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department, tagged categories) … analytic module 250 may retrieve such data from the storage device 220 for developing and training algorithms and models.”, “layers of processing are used to extract progressively higher level features from data.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication]);
generating a training dataset that includes multiple training samples, each training sample mapping at least one extracted feature of a particular communication to a metric indicative of progress of a sales process (see, e.g., ¶ 3, “generating, via a training data process, training data samples from respective journey data samples, each of the journey data samples including a customer journey”, 47, lines 31-32 and lines 47-48, “each training data sample includes a sequence of vector embeddings representing a sequence of customer journey events [i.e., including customer-agent communications] and a journey outcome … machine learning model may identify common features in the training dataset.”, and 52, “to identify common patterns in customer journeys, it is vital to focus on only the important events (milestone events) that lead to achieving an outcome and have predictive value. Such milestone events are events upon which accurate predictions can be made about a customer's next actions, wants, or needs.” [i.e., generate training data including training samples mapping a feature of a communication to a milestone/metric indicating progress of a customer journey/sales process]); and
training a machine learning model using the training dataset to generate a trained model that accepts as input, features extracted from a run-time communication associated with the sales process, and outputs a suggested follow-up communication likely to improve progress of the sales process (see, e.g., ¶ 47, “The sequence to sequence model may be trained on training data samples”, 49, “outcomes may be modeled to determine a "next best action" for a business to take in relation to a customer that is either likely to produce a desired result, such as make a sale” [i.e., suggested follow-up communication to improve progress of a sale], and 64, “This additional information can then be used for additional predictive insights, including "next best action" recommendations.” [i.e., training a model to output a next best action/suggested follow-up to improve a sales process/customer journey]).
Pat does not explicitly teach: extracting … one or more features for each communication in the plurality of communications based on a pre-generated taxonomy.
However, Kewalramani teaches:
extracting … one or more features for each communication in the plurality of communications based on a pre-generated taxonomy (see, e.g., ¶ 55-56, “common schema may define a common intermediate representation. For … MAP, CRM … extract all relevant and usable information from the tables of each of these different data sources into a common intermediate representation of each activity … This enables automation of the taxonomy”, “models, which are each associated with a different taxonomy for a different attribute of the activities represented by the activity records, are applied to the activity records.” [i.e., extracting from the activity records/communications features based on a pre-generated taxonomy]).
Pat and Kewalramani are analogous art because they are both are from the same field of endeavor and are both related to using machine learning to make recommendations to business representatives regarding customers (see, e.g., Pat, Abstract and ¶ 3 and Kewalramani, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosed system of Pat to incorporate the teachings of Kewalramani to provide a “common schema [that] may define a common intermediate representation” in order to “extract all relevant and usable information from the tables of each of these different data sources into a common intermediate representation of each activity”, which “enables automation of the taxonomy” (see, e.g., Kewalramani, ¶ 55). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to combine the system of Pat with the common representation, schema and taxonomy of Kewalramani because “Advantageously, the table(s) of the common intermediate representation have a fixed structure according to the common schema, so that features can be extracted from the same columns during each iteration of subprocess”, as suggested by Kewalramani. (see, e.g., Kewalramani, ¶ 55).
Regarding claim 2
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein extracting the one or more features includes detecting one or more keywords (see, e.g., ¶¶ 38-39, “access to … data related to interactions and interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and events detected therein), interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department, tagged categories) … analytic module 250 may retrieve such data from the storage device 220 for developing and training algorithms and models.”, “layers of processing are used to extract progressively higher level features from data.”, 37, “In accordance with functionality described herein, such features may include prompts for … audio or video conferencing, call analysis, keyword spotting, etc.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication includes detecting keywords]).
Pat does not explicitly teach: The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein extracting the one or more features includes detecting one or more keywords conforming to the taxonomy.
However, Kewalramani teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein extracting the one or more features includes detecting one or more keywords conforming to the taxonomy (see, e.g., ¶¶ 7-8, “store the predicted action class, the predicted channel class, and the predicted type class in association with the activity record as a taxonomized activity record”, “Extracting the action features, extracting the channel features, and extracting the type features may each comprise: deriving one or more keywords from the activity record; and converting the one or more keywords into a vector” [i.e., extracting features includes detecting keywords from a taxonomized activity record - conforming to the taxonomy]).
The motivation to combine Pat and Kewalramani is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein generating the training dataset further comprises computing, based on each communication, a score or a label indicating a quality of the communication (see, e.g., Pat, ¶ 64, “As a final step, after the model is trained, the attention scores may be calculated for certain of the events appearing in selected customer journeys. Such customer journeys may be selected as those cases where the trained model is successful at predicting the outcome.”).
Regarding claim 4
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented of claim 1 wherein training the machine learning model further comprises classifying a particular communication as beneficial or detrimental to the progress of the sales process (see, e.g., ¶ 47, “The sequence to sequence model may be trained on training data samples”, 49, “outcomes may be modeled to determine a "next best action" for a business to take in relation to a customer that is either likely to produce a desired result, such as make a sale” [i.e., suggested follow-up communication to improve progress of a sale], and 64, “This additional information can then be used for additional predictive insights, including "next best action" recommendations.” [i.e., training a model to output a next best action/suggested follow-up to improve a sales process/customer journey]).
Regarding claim 5
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, the run-time communication associated with the sales process (see, e.g., ¶ 22, “Further, the terms “interaction” and “communication” are used interchangeably, and generally refer to any real-time [i.e., run-time communications] and non-real-time interaction that uses any communication channel including, without limitation, telephone calls (PSTN or VoIP calls), emails, voicemails, video, chat, screen-sharing, text messages, social media messages, WebRTC calls, etc.” and 38, “The analytics module 250 also may have access to … interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and … interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department” [i.e., receiving run-time communications/interactions representing audio/phone and chat transcripts between an agent/BDR and customer associated with the sales process]);
extracting, from the run-time communication, at least one feature (see, e.g., ¶¶ 38-39, “access to … data related to interactions and interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and events detected therein), interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department, tagged categories) … analytic module 250 may retrieve such data from the storage device 220 for developing and training algorithms and models.”, “layers of processing are used to extract progressively higher level features from data.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication]);
providing the extracted at least one feature to the trained model (see, e.g., ¶ 38-39, “access to … data related to interactions and interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and events detected therein), interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department, tagged categories) … analytic module 250 may retrieve such data from the storage device 220 for developing and training algorithms and models.”, “layers of processing are used to extract progressively higher level features from data.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication for developing and training algorithms and models], 37, “In accordance with functionality described herein, such features may include prompts for … audio or video conferencing, call analysis, keyword spotting, etc.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication]);
and obtaining, from the trained model, the suggested follow-up communication likely to improve the progress of the sales process (see, e.g., ¶ 47, “The sequence to sequence model may be trained on training data samples”, 49, “outcomes may be modeled to determine a "next best action" for a business to take in relation to a customer that is either likely to produce a desired result, such as make a sale” [i.e., suggested follow-up communication to improve progress of a sale], and 64, “This additional information can then be used for additional predictive insights, including "next best action" recommendations.” [i.e., suggested follow-up communication to improve progress of a sale]).
Pat does not explicitly teach: extracting, from the run-time communication, at least one feature conforming to the taxonomy.
However, Kewalramani teaches:
extracting, from the run-time communication, at least one feature conforming to the taxonomy (see, e.g., ¶¶ 55-56, “common schema may define a common intermediate representation. For … MAP, CRM … extract all relevant and usable information from the tables of each of these different data sources into a common intermediate representation of each activity … This enables automation of the taxonomy”, “models, which are each associated with a different taxonomy for a different attribute of the activities represented by the activity records, are applied to the activity records.” [i.e., extracting from the activity records/communications features conforming to the taxonomy]);
The motivation to combine Pat and Kewalramani is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the suggested follow-up communication is displayed on a user-interface presented to a BDR participating in a sales pitch with a potential customer (see, e.g., ¶ 47, “The sequence to sequence model may be trained on training data samples”, 48, “enhanced models can then be used to provide more accurate visualizations as well as provide effective next best action recommendations”,49, “outcomes may be modeled to determine a "next best action" for a business to take in relation to a customer that is either likely to produce a desired result, such as make a sale” [i.e., suggested follow-up communication to improve progress of a sale], 64, “This additional information can then be used for additional predictive insights, including "next best action" recommendations.” [i.e., training a model to output a next best action/suggested follow-up to improve a sales process/customer journey] and 74, “In exemplary embodiments, the method may further include the step outputting one or more recommendations regarding actions to take with a future customer interacting with the website of the business … Such recommendations may be performed in real time in response to live interactions and/or executed automatically.”).
Regarding claim 7
Pat further teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein training the machine learning model further comprises contextualizing the training samples based on data from one or more sources (see, e.g., ¶ 3, “generating, via a training data process, training data samples from respective journey data samples, each of the journey data samples including a customer journey”, 47, lines 31-32 and lines 47-48, “Such models are designed to remember or “store” information from previous inputs, which allows them to make use of context and dependencies between time steps [i.e., contextualizing]… each training data sample includes a sequence of vector embeddings representing a sequence of customer journey events [i.e., including customer-agent communications] and a journey outcome … machine learning model may identify common features in the training dataset.”, and 52, “to identify common patterns in customer journeys, it is vital to focus on only the important events (milestone events) that lead to achieving an outcome and have predictive value. Such milestone events are events upon which accurate predictions can be made about a customer's next actions, wants, or needs.” [i.e., generate training data including training samples mapping a feature of a communication to a milestone/metric indicating progress of a customer journey/sales process]).
Regarding claim 10
Pat further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein mapping the at least one extracted feature comprises generating a vector indicative of the progress of the sales process (see, e.g., Abstract, “The training data process includes generating a vector embedding for each of the events included within the journey data samples that captures the value for each of the event attributes” [i.e., generating a vector mapping], ¶ 3, “generating, via a training data process, training data samples from respective journey data samples, each of the journey data samples including a customer journey”, 47, lines 31-32 and lines 47-48, “each training data sample includes a sequence of vector embeddings representing a sequence of customer journey events [i.e., including customer-agent communications] and a journey outcome … machine learning model may identify common features in the training dataset.”, and 52, “to identify common patterns in customer journeys, it is vital to focus on only the important events (milestone events) that lead to achieving an outcome and have predictive value. Such milestone events are events upon which accurate predictions can be made about a customer's next actions, wants, or needs.” [i.e., generate training data including training samples mapping a feature of a communication to a milestone/metric indicating progress of a customer journey/sales process]).
Regarding claim 11
Pat further teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein generating the vector comprises encoding the at least one extracted feature as structured data in the vector (see, e.g., ¶ 3, “generating, via a training data process, training data samples from respective journey data samples, each of the journey data samples including a customer journey”, 47, lines 31-32 and lines 47-48, “each training data sample includes a sequence of vector embeddings representing a sequence of customer journey events [i.e., including customer-agent communications] and a journey outcome … machine learning model may identify common features in the training dataset.”, and 52, “to identify common patterns in customer journeys, it is vital to focus on only the important events (milestone events) that lead to achieving an outcome and have predictive value. Such milestone events are events upon which accurate predictions can be made about a customer's next actions, wants, or needs.” [i.e., generate training data including training samples mapping a feature of a communication to a milestone/metric indicating progress of a customer journey/sales process]).
Regarding claim 12
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more features … comprises extracting at least one of the following information: an industry associated with the sales process, a product, a budget of the potential customer, a job title of the potential customer, a need of the potential customer, and a timeframe (see, e.g., ¶¶ 38-39, “access to … data related to interactions and interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and events detected therein), interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department, tagged categories) … analytic module 250 may retrieve such data from the storage device 220 for developing and training algorithms and models.”, “layers of processing are used to extract progressively higher level features from data.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication]).
Pat does not explicitly teach: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more features based on the pre-generated taxonomy comprises extracting at least one of the following information: an industry associated with the sales process, a product, a budget of the potential customer, a job title of the potential customer, a need of the potential customer, and a timeframe.
However, Kewalramani teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more features based on the pre-generated taxonomy comprises extracting at least one of the following information: an industry associated with the sales process, a product, a budget of the potential customer, a job title of the potential customer, a need of the potential customer, and a timeframe (see, e.g., Kewalramani, ¶ 51, “A MAP will generally provide a dashboard that enables marketing personnel to plan, coordinate, manage, and measure online and offline marketing campaigns, and to manage leads (i.e., potential customers) generated by the marketing campaigns, with the goal of converting those leads into actual customers (i.e., purchasers of a product offered by the organization)”).
The motivation to combine Pat and Kewalramani is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13
Pat further teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more… features comprises identifying a decision maker associated with the potential customers (see, e.g., ¶ 38-39, “access to … data related to interactions and interaction content (e.g., audio and transcripts of the interactions and events detected therein), interaction metadata (e.g., customer identifier, agent identifier, medium of interaction, length of interaction, interaction start and end time, department, tagged categories) … analytic module 250 may retrieve such data from the storage device 220 for developing and training algorithms and models.”, “layers of processing are used to extract progressively higher level features from data.” [i.e., extract/access features from each communication]).
Pat does not explicitly teach: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more features based on a pre-generated taxonomy comprises identifying a decision maker associated with the potential customer.
However, Kewalramani teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more features based on a pre-generated taxonomy comprises identifying a decision maker associated with the potential customer (see, e.g., Kewalramani, ¶ 52, “A MAP generally provide a dashboard that enables marketing personnel [i.e., BDR / decision maker] to plan, coordinate, manage, and measure online and offline marketing campaigns, and to manage leads (i.e., potential customers) generated by the marketing campaigns, with the goal of converting those leads into actual customers (i.e., purchasers of a product offered by the organization)”).
The motivation to combine Pat and Kewalramani is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claims 1, except this claim is directed to a “system”. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as addressed above.
Pat further discloses: A system, comprising: one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (see, e.g., Pat, ¶ 22, “components, modules, and/or servers … may include one or more processors executing computer program instructions and interacting with other system components for performing the various functionalities described herein. ”, ¶ 27, “the storage device 220 may be configured to include databases and/or store data related to any of the types of information described herein, with those databases and/or data being accessible to the other modules or servers of the contact center 200 in ways that facilitate the functionality described herein.”).
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, except this claim is directed to a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more data processing apparatus, cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations”. Therefore, this claim is rejected under the same ground and reasoning as claim 1, discussed above.
Pat further discloses: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more data processing apparatus, cause the one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations (see, e.g., Pat, ¶ 12, “The present invention may be computer implemented using different forms of data processing equipment, for example, digital microprocessors and associated memory, executing appropriate software programs.”, 14, “As shown in the illustrated example, the computing device 100 may include a central processing unit (CPU) or processor 105 and a main memory 110 ... The computing device 100 further may include additional elements, such as a memory port 140, a bridge 145, I/O ports, one or more additional input/output devices 135D, 135E, 135F, and a cache memory 150 in communication with the processor 105.”, 22, “components, modules, and/or servers … may include one or more processors executing computer program instructions and interacting with other system components for performing the various functionalities described herein.”).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pat in view of Kewalramani and further in view of non-patent literature McHugh (“Taxonomies, Ontologies, Semantic Models & Knowledge Graphs”, 2022; hereinafter "McHugh").
Regarding claim 8
Pat further teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more sources comprise a ... database storing information internal to an organization associated with the BDR (see, e.g., ¶ 13, “various servers and computer devices thereof may be located on local computing devices 100 (i.e., on-site or at the same physical location as contact center agents), remote computing devices 100 (i.e., off-site or in a cloud computing environment, for example, in a remote data center connected to the contact center via a network), or some combination thereof.”, 27, “it should be understood that, unless otherwise specified, the storage device 220 may be configured to include databases and/or store data related to any of the types of information described herein, with those databases and/or data being accessible to the other modules or servers of the contact center 200 in ways that facilitate the functionality described herein.”).
Although Pat in view of Kewalramani substantially teaches the claimed invention, Pat in view of Kewalramani does not explicitly teach but McHugh teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more sources comprise a semantic graph database storing information (see, e.g., McHugh, page 4, “Knowledge graphs are models that instantiate the taxonomy and ontology via a semantic model using the actual data and associated relationships [i.e., a semantic graph] … These relationships contain data and metadata about the relationship between nodes, which is very different from the inferred relationships between columns of data in a relational database.” [i.e., the sources include a semantic graph database storing information]).
Pat, Kewalramani and McHugh are analogous art because they are each from the same field of endeavor and are each related to using machine learning to make recommendations to business representatives regarding customers (see, e.g., Pat, Abstract and ¶ 3, Kewalramani, Abstract, and McHugh, pages 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pat in view of Kewalramani to incorporate the teachings of McHugh to use McHugh’s database and semantic graph (see, e.g., McHugh, pages 4-5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to combine Pat in view of Kewalramani with the database and semantic graph of McHugh because “we can achieve progressive improvements to the improvement of the data model without creating and injecting new code … incremental improvements to the knowledge graph are critical to implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) because this mimics how the human brain can reassess a concept or situation based on new data and derive a course correction”, as suggested by McHugh (see, e.g., McHugh, pages 4-5).
Regarding claim 9
Pat further teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the … database stores information obtained from servers external with respect to the organization associated with the BDR (see, e.g., ¶ 13, “various servers and computer devices thereof may be located on local computing devices 100 (i.e., on-site or at the same physical location as contact center agents), remote computing devices 100 (i.e., off-site or in a cloud computing environment, for example, in a remote data center connected to the contact center via a network), or some combination thereof.”, 27, “it should be understood that, unless otherwise specified, the storage device 220 may be configured to include databases and/or store data related to any of the types of information described herein, with those databases and/or data being accessible to the other modules or servers of the contact center 200 in ways that facilitate the functionality described herein.”).
Although Pat in view of Kewalramani substantially teaches the claimed invention, Pat in view of Kewalramani does not explicitly teach but McHugh teaches:
the semantic graph database (see, e.g., McHugh, page 4, “Knowledge graphs are models that instantiate the taxonomy and ontology via a semantic model using the actual data and associated relationships … These relationships contain data and metadata about the relationship between nodes, which is very different from the inferred relationships between columns of data in a relational database.”).
The motivation to combine Pat, Kewalramani and McHugh is the same as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEDGE D JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-2777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-272-3169. 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.
/N.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
1Pat was filed on 12/19/2023, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/313,512 filed on 12/19/2022, and this date is before the effective filing date of this application, i.e., 2/17/2023. Therefore, Pat constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).