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 .
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 1-20 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), claim 8 is directed to “a system” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 15 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “generating a communication effectivity score and a suggestion for improving the communication effectivity score,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“determining video call data for one or more past video calls for a user account of a content management system;
generating, utilizing a communication effectivity model to process the video call data, a communication effectivity score indicating an effectiveness of communication for the user account;
generating, based on the communication effectivity score, an effectiveness prompt comprising a suggestion for improving the communication effectivity score; and
providing the effectiveness prompt for display associated with the user account of the content management system.”
Per claim 8:
“determine video call data for one or more past video calls for a user account of a content management system;
generate, utilizing a communication effectivity model to process the video call data, a communication effectivity score indicating an effectiveness of communication for the user account;
generate, based on the communication effectivity score, an effectiveness prompt comprising instructions for improving the communication effectivity score; and
provide the effectiveness prompt for display associated with the user account of the content management system.”
Per claim 15:
“determine video call data for one or more past video calls for a user account of a content management system;
generate, utilizing a communication effectivity model to process the video call data, a communication effectivity score indicating an effectiveness of communication for the user account;
generate, based on generating the communication effectivity score, an effectiveness prompt comprising instructions for improving the communication effectivity score; and
provide the effectiveness prompt for display associated with the user account of the content management system.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a mental process of evaluating” (i.e. In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “at least one processor,” and “a client device,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “generating a communication effectivity score and a suggestion for improving the communication effectivity score,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. of “at least one processor,” and “a client device,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are so sufficiently well-known, that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one processor,” as described in paras. [0244] and [0249] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0244] Embodiments of the present disclosure may comprise or utilize a special purpose or general-purpose computer including computer hardware, such as, for example, one or more processors and system memory, as discussed in greater detail below.”
“[0249] Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which, when executed by a processor, cause a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions.”
As such, the Applicant’s “at least one processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a client device,” as described in para. [0064] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0064] As mentioned above, the example environment includes client device(s) 108a-108n. The client device(s) 108a-108n can be one of a variety of computing devices, including a smartphone, a tablet, a smart television, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a virtual reality device, an augmented reality device, or another computing device as described in relation to FIGS. 28-29.”
Here, the Applicant’s description of the claimed “a client device,” merely provides a laundry list of computers. As such, this is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional data computing element that is considered ubiquitous, standard off-the-shelf equipment that is commercially available today.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment that is (1) generic, routine, conventional, and/or commercially available; and (2) does not provide anything significantly more. Thus, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 8 or 15. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0086393 to Peters, et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Peters”). However, Peters does not explicitly teach “generating, utilizing a communication effectivity model to process the video call data, a communication effectivity score indicating an effectiveness of communication for the user account,” per independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 1-20 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715