DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to RCE filed on 11/27/2025 in which claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18-21, 24 and 26 are presented for examination; Claims 1, 5, 18, and 19 have been amended.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 115 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18-21, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding, claims 1 and 19, the amended claim recites “verifying, by the Al engine, if the employee is truthful in the actions or responses to the actionable prompt, by analyzing one or more attributes associated with the actions or the responses received from the employee, facial expression of the employee, body language of the employee, prior responses provided by the employee, predetermined employee attributes, and by comparing employee-related data with peer employees-related data;”
As written, it seems the claim requires each of the listed items; but claim starts by saying that verification is required for actions or responses. If the verification is required only for actions or responses, then why we need all the items including actions and responses. The “ facial, and body language” are actions; and response being responses; not sure where the predetermined employee attributes will fit. Also, if the verification can be done via the actions or responses (any one of them), then it is not clear that how verification is done by each of the items. For example, if we select the actions for verifying, but not the responses, then how could we proceed with “ prior responses provided by the employee, predetermined employee attributes, and by comparing employee-related data with peer employees-related data.”
Also, it is not clear what items are considered actions, and what items are considered responses. Under BRI user actions can be considered user responses, so it is not clear what “verifying, by the Al engine, if the employee is truthful in the actions or responses to the actionable prompt.” actually means.
Regarding claim 18, claim states “verify if the employee is truthful in the actions or responses to the actionable prompt, by analyzing one or more attributes associated with the actions or the responses received from the employee, facial expression of the employee, or body language of the employee, prior responses provided by the employee, predetermined employee attributes, and by comparing employee-related data with peer employees-related data;”
Same rejection applies to claim 18, as applied with regard to claim 1; Also, in this claim it is not clear, what is the use of “or” in the claim limitation as a whole.
Dependent claims, 2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 20-21, 24, 26 are rejected based in rejected base claims 1, 18, and 19 respectively.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18-21, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding, claims 1, 18, and 19, the amended claim substantially recites “verifying, by the Al engine, if the employee is truthful in the actions or responses to the actionable prompt, by analyzing one or more attributes associated with the actions or the responses received from the employee, facial expression of the employee, body language of the employee, prior responses provided by the employee, predetermined employee attributes, and by comparing employee-related data with peer employees-related data;” The specification is devoid of teaching, if every item is needed to be addressed. The specification makes it clear that a lot of items mentioned in the limitations are just examples of the attributes of the actions and responses. Also, please see remarks with regard to 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. As seen in para below:
“[0089] In an embodiment herein, the AI engine 108, verifies if an employee or a group of employees are being truthful in the actions or responses to the actionable prompt by analyzing on one or more attribute associated with the responses or actions received from the employees, such as for example, a comparison one a current response with one or more previous responses of the employee as stored in the repository, a facial expression or body language of the employee and the like.”
Dependent 2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 20-21, 24, 26 claims are rejected based in rejected base claims 1, 18, and 19 respectively.
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 1-2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18-21, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a method.
Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception)
Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental processes and organizing human activity.
Claim 1 recites:
“A processor-implemented method for automated assessment of an emotional state of an employee using artificial intelligence, the method comprising steps of: receiving a login request from the employee on an automated assessment platform; generating, by an artificial intelligence engine (Al engine) associated with a server, an actionable prompt, based on one or more attributes associated with the employee, and providing the actionable prompt to the employee via a user interface, by the automated assessment platform ; capturing, by the automated assessment platform, employee assessment data, based on actions performed by the employee in reply to the actionable prompt and transmitting the employee assessment data to the Al engine; analyzing, by the Al engine, the employee assessment data, to assess the emotional state of the employee; and predicting the one or more attributes of the employee based on the employee assessment data collected over a predetermined period of time; verifying, by the Al engine, if the employee is truthful in the actions or responses to the actionable prompt, by analyzing one or more attributes associated with the actions or the responses received from the employee, facial expression of the employee, body language of the employee, prior responses provided by the employee, predetermined employee attributes, and by comparing employee-related data with peer employees-related data; capturing facial recognition data corresponding to the employee, by the automated assessment platform, over a predetermined period of time, and receiving, by the Al engine, facial recognition data of the employee in combination with the employee assessment data, and determining if there exists a disparity between the responses provided by the employee to the actionable prompt and the emotional state of the employee, by comparing and correlating the facial recognition data to the responses provided by the employee, and triggering a notification by the AI engine , indicating an appropriate emotional state of the employee, in an event the disparity exists between the responses provided by the employee and the emotional state of the employee; establishing, by the Al engine, individual norms for identifying a mood of a plurality of employees based on the employee assessment data corresponding to each of the plurality of employees, and concerns, issues, and suggestions provided by each of the plurality of employees, and computing an emotional performance score for each of the employees; and determining, by the Al engine, a remedial action for the employee, based on an analysis of the employee assessment data, to facilitate maintaining of the emotional state of the employee. And identifying by the AI engine , one or more patterns in the employee assessment data and predicting a performance and emotional state of the employee , based on the one or more patterns. ”
All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)), and organizing human activity with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to analyzing employee’s emotional state(e.g. mood, feeling, physical energy etc.) in a work environment. The emotions are analyzed based on the feedback from employee and a remedial (intervention) is presented based on the provided data to facilitate the employee. Employe’s actual emotions can be judged/verified by observing his actions , responses , facial expressions or body language. A performance/sentiment score can be computed based on employees concerns/issues and suggestions provided to them. All these actions can be done mentally or on paper. One could note changing emotional state of employee just by observing and matching with the responses provided. . Furthermore, predicting a performance and emotional state of the employee, based on the one or more patterns falls under organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)).
Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO
The claim does recite additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
processor -implemented (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))
automated assessment platform (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))
artificial intelligence(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))
receiving a login request by an employee on an automated assessment platform (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
artificial intelligence engine (Al engine) (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))
server (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))
user interface (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))
transmitting the employee assessment data to the AI engine(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
artificial intelligence models(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))
AI engine (Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h))
facial recognition data (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))
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the claim limitations:
receiving a login request by an employee on an automated assessment platform , the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
transmitting the employee assessment data to the AI engine , the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2, 5 , 7- 8, 14, 16 further narrows the abstract idea described in claim 1, and further add the additional limitations of “processor”, “geofencing”, “machine learning techniques”, “automated assessment platform”, “Statistical techniques”“ model” , “automated assessment platform”, “audio and/or-video content displayed”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely 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).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. In addition it adds the additional elements of “training an artificial intelligence (AI) engine”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional element don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely 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).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected on the same rationale as claim 1. In addition to this claim recites additional elements of “system”, “automated assessment”, “artificial intelligence”, “processor”, “memory”, “executable modules”, “receive employee assessment data”, “receiving a login request “
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely 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).
Regarding the additional limitations “receive employee assessment data”, “receive a login request “the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 20-21, 24 and 26 further narrows the abstract idea described in claim 19, and further add the additional limitations of “AI engine”, “machine learning techniques”, “models”, “automated assessment platform”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely 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).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks - 35 USC § 101
In remarks, Pg. 11-12, applicant contends: “the Office asserted that claim 1 describes "analyzing an employee's emotional state (for example, mood, feeling, physical energy, and the like) in a work environment. The learned Examiner has asserted that the process of ..... Applicant submits that the amended steps attributed to the Al-engine cannot be performed by a human mental process.”
The amended claim language have been addressed in the claim rejection part.
In remarks, Pg. 12, applicant contends: “applicant submits that when the truthfulness or falsity of the responses/actions provided by a multitude of employees is to be determined, the cognitive and analytical abilities of the human mental process is not sufficient, to:.....”
The applicant is misinterpreting the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis, and how it is applied. The issue is not the sufficiency of human mind to consider processing multitude of information. As, for example, the use of calculator can make the calculation task more efficient and enable handling of multitude of information; but that is just applying the tool, rather than stating that performing simple calculations can’t be done using paper and pen. Also, in the analysis each limitation is being considered in itself, and in combination, and claim as a whole. After determining this, the task could be performed in mind or using paper and pen; in the next step, the additional limitations are being considered to see if they integrate the abstract idea into practical application. At this step of analysis, merely applying the tools, of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. According to MPEP:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In remarks, Pg. 12 , the applicant contends: “Applicant submits that only a specialized computer processor (a pre-programmed, specialized Al engine triggered and executed by a computer processor, in this case) can automate the process of:....”
Following are few examples where the specialized computer is being used to perform a task, and the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)):
i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017); [AltContent: rect]
ii. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer without any limitations that addressed the issues of shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and [AltContent: rect]
iii. Wireless delivery of out-of-region broadcasting content to a cellular telephone via a network without any details of how the delivery is accomplished, Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262-63, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); [AltContent: rect]
ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); [AltContent: rect]
iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); [AltContent: rect]
iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); [AltContent: rect]
v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and [AltContent: rect]
As can be seen from above examples, steps such as collecting, correlating, and analyzing... without providing any details as to how a solution to a problem is being accomplished have been found to be the additional elements(merely applying instructions)
In remarks, Pg. 15, applicant contends:
“The Applicant further submits that a human brain would never be able to accurately capture, correlate and analyze the diversified facial expressions and the body language exhibited by a multitude of employees. The Applicant humbly submits that the human brain would never be able to accurately correlate the facial expressions, the body language, employee attributes, previously provided employee responses, and the attributes of the responses/actions provided by each of the employees, with the responses/actions exhibited by each of the employees to the actionable prompt.”
The applicant have repeated similar remarks multiple times. Also, for capturing, correlating, and analyzing tools are already available; the applicant needs to show more than just stating that “a human brain would never be able to accurately capture, correlate and analyze the diversified facial expressions and the body language exhibited by a multitude of employees.” As mentioned above, in Prong 2, we need to show the detail of how we are solving a specific technical problem, or providing an improvement to technical field. For example, in above argument, how are we improving the capturing technology? At human level, we can capture employee assessment data on paper using pen; Also, one can identify data comprising facial recognition (we are doing this every time we looking at a person and recognizing them), we can recognize voice data (for example we can tell the voice difference with people we communicate), we can have employee finger print on paper. As for technical aspect, we have a lot of of tools that can capture and analyze voice, fingerprint, and facial recognition. As for example, multifactor authentications, such as biometric authentication. As can be seen from claim language, the claims present no technical detail.
In remarks, Pg. 16, applicant contends:
“The Applicant submits that the human brain would never be as accurate as the "Al engine" of claim 1 in terms of correlating the diversified facial expressions of a multitude of employees to the responses/actions exhibited by the multitude of employees and analysing the responses/actions exhibited by the multitude of employees in the light of the diversified facial expressions (i.e., facial recognition data) exhibited by each of the employees. The applicant further submits that in the case of a multitude of empoyees , the facial expressions required to be captured and analysed increase multifold, and so does the diversity associated with the facial expressions and the complexity of correlating correlating the facial expressions with the employee actions/responses, thus making the task of capturing and analysing the diversified facial expressions and correlating the captured facial expressions to the employees' responses and employees' emotional state all the more arduous, and beyond the purview of the human brain.”
As stated with response to above arguments; handling multitude of employees data, analyzing, and accuracy of the computer system doesn’t indicate that additional elements integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The applicant needs to provide technical details, as to how the processing technology is being improved, or how the accuracy of analysis models is being improved.
In remarks, Pg. 18, applicant contends:
The Applicant submits that the human brain will never be able to effectively establish "individual norms" for identifying different employees' moods and mood changes. The Applicant further submits that even if the human brain is able to establish "certain norms" for determining the mood of an employee, such "norms" may not be suitable for determining the mood of a diversified group of employees, given that the mood- related perceptions, emotions, actions, and reactions of each of the employees may be different. The Applicant further submits that, therefore, such "norms," established by the human brain, may not be consistent enough in determining the mood of an employee at various points in time or determining the mood of a group of employees at various points in time.”
One could log mood/mood changes for different time periods and analyze the data based on the recorded/logged data. Also, if a computer implemented application is used to keep track of the mood (of employee) at various points in time. That could be merely done on apply level. There is no sort of improvement in keeping track of employee moods at various points in time.
In remarks, Pg. 19, applicant contends:
The Applicant submits that the functions and features corresponding to AI engine (as claimed in amended claim 1) are not well-known, well-understood, and routine computer functions executable on a general-purpose computer. The Applicant further submits that, instead, the Al engine-related features and functionalities are executed by a specialized, pre-programmed computer processor, that has been specifically configured to "automate" the collection, correlation, and analysis of a plurality of employee-related data points, viz., the employee facial expressions, the employee body language, employee attributes, previously provided employee responses, the attributes corresponding to the actions/responses exhibited by a multitude of employees, and employee mood-related data and "generate actionable intelligence" (i.e., assessment of emotional state of employees) based on the accurate, effective, and efficient correlation and analysis of the said employees-related data points. The Applicant further submits that none of the Al engine-related features and functionalities claimed in amended claim 1 are generic in nature. The Applicant submits that, instead, the Al engine-related features and functionalities, when executed/implemented, produce a hitherto unknown technical effect and technical result.”
The examiner only used insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), only for receiving and transmitting aspect, and for that examiner have provided MPEP citation. The applicant can’t rely on abstract idea limitations to show that claim is integrated into practical application, rather, applicant needs to show that additional limitations integrate the abstract idea into practical application. It is suggested that applicant incorporate the technical details, of how the applicant is accomplishing collecting, analyzing, etc... into claim language, and further shows that how the technical details are solving a technical problem in the field, or provide an improvement to the technical field.
Remarks - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed on 11/27/2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 14, 16, 18-21, 24 and 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections has been withdrawn. Please note, further search and consideration will be given in light of claim amendments to overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) issue as recited above, which could impact the allowability over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00am - 5:00 pm) EST.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights