DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgments
Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled.
Applicant did not provide information disclosure statement.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 4/6/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that amended claim 1 recites a calculation of scores for a plurality of message pairs requiring the evaluation of multiple pairwise combinations of messages within clustered datasets. This is not merely a matter of increased effort, but rather reflects a class of computational operations that are not practically performable in the human mind, particularly where such calculations are performed across clustered datasets and rely on machine-learned representations of message content. These operations involve structured, algorithmic processing across message datasets and are not practically performable mentally
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Calculating a score does not require a computer. In addition, processing data with respect to messages also does not require a computer. Applicant argues that the claims deal with a plurality of messages and multiple pairwise combinations, but a plurality or multiple could mean only 2. A computer would not be needed to process 2 messages or combinations. The Applicant’s claims do not support large amounts of messages as Applicant claims.
Applicant argues on page 12
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims having the additional limitations do not fall into the abstract category of (2) certain methods of organizing human activities. The claimed subject matter is not directed to human interactions, business relationships, or managing human behavior, but instead to the internal operation of a computer system configured to process message data through a defined sequence of computational stages.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite determining whether each message of a plurality of messages is eligible or ineligible for response, this is with respect to interactions with representatives and customers as seen in para 002 of the Specification (See para 002- Customer service representatives, account executives, sales development representatives, customer success managers, and other business-to-customer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) representatives rely on following up with customers or potential customers in order to achieve their goals.). In addition, para 0023 teaches conversation data with respect to customers. In addition, the instant application also teaches managing and filtering an employee’s messages as seen here creating a first set of filtered messages by filtering each message which is determined to be ineligible for response in order to create the first set of filtered messages. These make the claims fall into the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activities (business relations, interactions between people).
Applicant argues on page 13-15
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims provide for improvement in the functioning of computers or other technology and apply any allegedly judicial exception to result in improved functioning of a computer system (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a). The amended claim 1 is directed to a multi-stage progressive filtering architecture that purposefully reduces computational burden by applying less resource-intensive filtering in earlier stages and reserving more computationally intensive operations-such as clustering, pairwise distance calculations, and machine learning-based redundancy scoring for a reduced subset of data. The Specification expressly explains that this staged processing "conserve[s] resources by applying more resource-intensive filtering to only a limited subset of the message data" (Spec [0015]; see also 0034]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. Applicant’s specification in 002 state the business problem of following up with customers and filtering messages. The Applicant also recited improving communication of data, but this improvement is nested in the abstract idea step of communicating data which can be done without the use of a computer. In contrast, a technical problem and solution are seen in the court case of McRO unlike the instant application. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
Applicant argues on page 15
Lastly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims provide an inventive concept such that the amended claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 28: YES). The Examiner's characterization of the claims as "mere data manipulation" is inconsistent with the claim language. The Examiner's focus on generic elements such as network communication does not address the ordered combination of limitations, which is where the inventive concept resides. The claims require a specific sequence of computational steps-pairwise evaluation using a distance metric, weighted scoring, threshold-based selection, and filtering of messages-that collectively define a concrete data-processing technique. These are not conceptual steps, but a specific computational procedure that evaluates relationships across multiple messages and uses the results to transform the dataset itself
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Classifying data and filtering are mere improvements nested in the abstract idea grouping of a mental process. In addition, the steps of calculating/generating scores and selecting messages also do not require a computer. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process. The courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality which include mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 10 and 11 recite the limitations of
determining whether each message of a plurality of messages is eligible or ineligible for response, wherein determining whether each message is eligible or ineligible for response further comprises applying eligibility rules defining at least one criteria for determining that a message requires further action; creating a first set of filtered messages by filtering each message which is determined to be ineligible for response in order to create a first set of filtered messages; clustering…messages of the first set of filtered messages into a plurality of clusters based on contents of the first set of filtered messages…creating a second set of filtered messages by filtering, from the first set of filtered messages…and generating at least one call-to-action based on the second set of filtered messages.
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed on 8/7/2025, the amendments further state
Identifying…a sequence of messages with a high rate from the first set of filtered messages, wherein the sequence of messages has potentially redundant messages within the sequence of messages
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/11/2025, the amendments further state
causing a display of the generated at least one call-to-action…
wherein the generated at least one call-to-action is communicated to the user…
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 12/11/2025, the amendments further recite
calculating, for a plurality of pairs of messages within at least one cluster of the plurality of clusters, scores between the plurality of pairs of messages using a distance metric applied to message contents; generating redundancy scores by applying a weighted combination of the scores between the plurality of pairs of messages and rate-based data associated with the identified sequence of messages; selecting, based on the redundancy scores, a subset of messages within the at least one cluster by comparing the redundancy scores to a redundancy threshold
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts determining, filtering, clustering, identifying, generating, displaying, and communicating data. The claims further recite the limitations of calculating, selecting, and comparing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, the claim language encompasses determining whether messages are eligible or ineligible for a response, creating sets of messages by filtering, clustering sets of messages, identifying a redundant task in the clusters, identifying messages, and generating a call to action based on a set of filtered messages. The claims further state causing a display of the call to action which includes communicating data. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. A user is able to determine what messages are eligible for a response and filter those messages. A user is also able to identify a task in the messages as well as make clusters for the messages. A user is able to generate and carry out an action based on the sets of messages. A user is able to make a display for the call to action and communicate to another user. In addition, a user is able to calculate, select, and compare data without the use of a computer.
The claims recite determining whether each message of a plurality of messages is eligible or ineligible for response, this is with respect to interactions with representatives and customers as seen in para 002 of the Specification (See para 002- Customer service representatives, account executives, sales development representatives, customer success managers, and other business-to-customer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) representatives rely on following up with customers or potential customers in order to achieve their goals.). In addition, para 0023 teaches conversation data with respect to customers. In addition, the instant application also teaches managing and filtering an employee’s messages as seen here creating a first set of filtered messages by filtering each message which is determined to be ineligible for response in order to create the first set of filtered messages. These make the claims fall into the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activities (business relations, interactions between people).
It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components do not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional of elements of non-transitory computer readable medium, processing circuitry, system, user device, network, computer resources, machine learning model, and memory.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe marking tasks as completed. The dependent claims further recite populating a template with plurality of messages. The dependent claims further recite determining redundant tasks based on scores between pairs of messages.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however a method is not considered an additional element
Claim 1 further recites machine learning model, network, and user device.
Claim 6 and 16 recite computer resources.
Claim 10 recites machine learning model, non-transitory computer readable medium, processing circuity, network, and user device.
Claim 11 recites machine learning model, system, processing circuitry, memory, network, and user device.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose microprocessors in para 0075
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose microprocessors as seen in para 0075. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Adington (20200219031) Discloses embodiments that provide a computer-implemented technique for filtering electronic communication based on the current task of a user. The current task of a user is derived using a workflow segmentation model.
Delaney (20160350696) Discloses determining resource utilization in an organization, a portion describing an interaction between a first participant and a second participant is identified in a human-readable content of a message. Using NLP, the portion is analyzed to extract a verb and a subject corresponding to the interaction.
Punera (20150134389) Discloses a method and apparatus for the automatic suggestion generation in a relationship management system is described.
Uppala (20190036849) Discloses a system that is configured to replay a selected conversation with a selected agent. The selected conversation may be selected from a plurality of previously conducted conversations with other agents.
Sheng (10657158) Discloses techniques for automatically generating data extraction templates for structured documents (e.g., B2C emails, invoices, bills, invitations, etc.), and for assigning classifications to those data extraction templates to streamline data extraction from subsequent structured documents.
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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights