DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 4, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-9, 11-21, and 23 are pending.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the independent claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the present claims recite subject matter that is similar to Example 21, claim 2, from the subject matter eligibility examples. See Remarks p. 10. In response, the Examiner points out that Example 21 is old training material that has been incorporated into MPEP §2106. Moreover, claim 2 from Example 21 recites significantly more by providing a solution for alerting a user about a stock price when the computer is offline. See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ai-workshop-ii-ex-21-cl-1-and-2.pdf. The claims, below, have been properly analyzed under the guidance in MPEP §2106 to arrive at a conclusion of ineligibility. In contrast with Example 21, claim 2, no apparent improvement to a technology or technical field is recited in the claims. Displaying data regarding interaction insights is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more; therefore, the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is updated and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-9, 11-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-9, 11-21, and 23 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to providing insights to interactions (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “provide the retrieved escalation driver interaction parameters to an enterprise predictive model that outputs an interaction insight result”), an abstract idea. Certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “an entity interaction data store;” “a risk relationship data store;” “associate [ ] interaction identifiers . . . with [ ] accounts;” “retrieve escalation driver interaction parameters . . . and risk relationship parameters;” “provide the retrieved escalation driver interaction parameters to a trained enterprise predive model that outputs an interaction insight result;” “perform further training of the trained enterprise predictive model;” “initiate an action;” generation [sic] of an alert message;” “transmission [sic] of the alert message;” “facilitate an exchange of data . . . that include[s] information about the interaction insight result;” “establish communication links with communication addresses and output messages;” “automatically schedule tasks and communications;” and “generate interaction workflows.” The steps are all steps for managing personal behavior related to the abstract idea of providing insights to interactions that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract idea of providing insights to interactions. The dependent claims further recite steps for managing personal behavior that are part of the abstract idea of providing insights to interactions. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes modeling data regarding insurance policy claim interactions to gain insights about the interactions.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a computer server, computer processor, memory, and interface in independent claim 1; a server; computer processor, and interface in independent claim 12; and a computer readable medium executed by a processor; and interface in independent claim 17). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The various displays and servers that are recited are also generic computer hardware The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a computer server, computer processor, memory, and interface in independent claim 1; a server; computer processor, and interface in independent claim 12; and a computer readable medium executed by a processor; and interface in independent claim 17) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights