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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11
These claimed steps cannot be practically performed within a human mind, as the steps involve interconnected machine learning models. For similar reasons, the steps are also not a sales activity. Therefore, the rejections should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner interprets the machine learning models as additional elements and therefore the machine learning models are not part Step 2A prong 1 of identifying an abstract idea. The claimed invention is merely receiving results from algorithms/models and combining the results to provide a final output. This is merely manipulation of data that does not require a computer. A user can use two results to make a final third result. The claimed invention is merely automating a manual process.
Applicant argues on page 12
The present claims describe a unique and practical implementation in which different machine learning models interact with each other for making a prediction. The claimed features are rooted in computer technology and data processing. The specificity of these claims, as well as their unique implementation of any alleged abstract idea, is far from a "drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." MPEP § 2106.04(d). Moreover, MPEP provides that "an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated [an] exception into a practical application [if it is an] improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical fields." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Here, the claimed features, as a whole, constitute an improvement in the functioning of computer technology by solving the problem of how to analyze customer profiles with different machine learning models that make predictions using different types of data and different prediction approaches.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. Applicant states the business problem of analyzing customer profiles and making predictions. In addition, Applicant’s specification states in para 0002 the business problem of service customization for customers and better utilizing customer data. This is clearly a business problem. In contrast, a technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. 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 13
The Claims Add Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea…"An examiner should determine that an element (or combination
of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are merely using general computer components that are used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. Applicant’s specification states general purpose computer configurations as see in para 0025. In addition, Examiner did not use the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101, the 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” The consideration of well understood, routine, or conventional is only one consideration of step 2B, it is not the sole consideration.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/22/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103 rejection.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 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 1-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, system, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 15 and similarly claims 1 and 8 recite the limitations of
receiving…a first customer profile corresponding to a first customer, wherein the first customer profile comprises confidential information and nonconfidential information; receiving…a plurality of sales agent profiles each corresponding to a respective sales agent of a plurality of sales agents; receiving, for each of the plurality of sales agent profiles, one or more previously completed transactions made by the corresponding sales agent;
for each sales agent of the plurality of sales agents: receiving, from a… first…model, a respective first likelihood of a successful transaction between the sales agent and the first customer, wherein the first…model is trained to predict a likelihood of a successful transaction by comparing an input customer profile with an input sales agent profile; and receiving, from a case based reasoning (CBR)… model, a respective second likelihood of a successful transaction between the sales agent and the first customer, wherein the CBR machine learning model is trained to predict a likelihood of a successful transaction by comparing an input customer profile with a plurality of customer profiles in a transaction history of a sales agent; determining, based on output of a third…model…a first sales agent, of the plurality of sales agents, that has a high likelihood of making a successful transaction with the first customer, wherein the third… model is trained to combine predictions from the first … model and the CBR…model
generating… an excerpt of the first customer profile omitting the confidential information; sending…the excerpt, of the first customer profile, and an identification of the first sales agent; receiving…feedback indicating whether the first sales agent made the successful transaction with the first customer; and storing…a mapping between the first customer profile and a first sales agent profile corresponding to the first sales agent; and adjusting…the confidential information in the first customer profile, and the mapping, the…model.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, determining, generating, sending, storing, and adjusting data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of 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 simply receiving customer and agent data, receiving from models a first and second likelihood of a successful transaction between the agent and customer, determining an output from an additional model, generating an excerpt, sending the excerpt, receiving feedback regarding if the transaction was successful, storing the customer and agent mapping, and adjusting the model based on the feedback. These steps are mere data manipulation step that do not require a computer. For example, a company manager can receive and analyze customer and agent data by inputting the data into a model to determine likelihood of a transaction. A company manager would also be able to adjust that model based on feedback received and to generate an excerpt showing the agent and customer. Determining if a sale will occur between an agent and customer is not a novel concept and the claimed invention is merely automating a manual process.
In addition, the claims state customers and agents and the likelihood of a successful transaction. The Specification in para 0002 also talks about providing different services to customers. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; 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 elements of first/second/third machine learning model, CBR machine learning model, first computing device, first database, second computing device, second database, auto-lead data format, system, processors, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
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 what the nonconfidential and confidential information comprise such as demographic information and financial information.
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 method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites first/second/third machine learning model, CBR machine learning model, auto-lead data format (ADF), first computing device, first database, second computing device, and second database.
Claim 8 recites first/second/third machine learning model, system, CBR machine learning model, auto-lead data format (ADF), first computing device, first database, second computing device, and second database.
Claim 15 recites first/second/third machine learning model, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processors, auto-lead data format (ADF), CBR machine learning model, first computing device, first database, second computing device, and second database.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as see in para 0025.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0025. 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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 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.
Muncy (US20120179476A1) Discloses auto-lead data format with respect to sale leads.
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