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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 15, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 13, 2026 for the patent application 18/415,036 originally filed on January 17, 2024. Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 15 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. The first office action of February 13, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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:
“training communication effectivity by: utilizing the communication effectivity to generate a predicted communication effectivity score from training data;
comparing the predicted communication effectivity score to a ground truth communication effectivity score that corresponds to the training data to determine a measure of loss; and
adjusting parameters of the communication effectivity model according to the measure of loss;
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:
“train communication effectivity by: utilizing the communication effectivity to generate a predicted communication effectivity score from training data;
comparing the predicted communication effectivity score to a ground truth communication effectivity score that corresponds to the training data to determine a measure of loss; and
adjusting parameters of the communication effectivity model according to the measure of loss;
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:
“train communication effectivity by: utilizing the communication effectivity to generate a predicted communication effectivity score from training data;
comparing the predicted communication effectivity score to a ground truth communication effectivity score that corresponds to the training data to determine a measure of loss; and
adjusting parameters of the communication effectivity model according to the measure of loss;
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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 13, 2026 related to claims 1-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that, similar to Example 39, and contrary to the assertions of the Office Action, the currently amended independent claims do not recite a judicial exception. Specifically, similar to the claim of Example 39, the claims have been amended to include the following limitations: "training a communication effectivity model by: utilizing the communication effectivity model to generate a predicted communication effectivity score from training data; comparing the predicted communication effectivity score to a ground truth communication effectivity score that corresponds to the training data to determine a measure of loss; and adjusting parameters of the communication effectivity model according to the measure of loss." Accordingly, applicant respectfully submits that the currently amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea because training a communication effectivity model is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. Furthermore, training a model to perform a task is no different than training a person to perform a task. While the steps may be different, the end result of completing the task is still the same. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that any alleged abstract idea recited in the currently amended independent claims is recited into a practical application under the rationale of Desjardins. The claim at issue in Desjardins relates to a method for training a machine learning model. See Desjardins at 2. Further, the corresponding specification in Desjardins described how training the machine learning model improved the functioning of a computer. See id. at 3. Specifically, the specification in Desjardins describes how the claimed improvement "allows artificial intelligence (AI) systems to 'us[e] less of their storage capacity' and enables 'reduced system complexity." See id. at 8-9. The Appeals Review Panel (hereinafter "ARP") in Desjardins decision focuses on how claim limitations can reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer as described in the specification. See id. Further, the ARP identifies that the claimed limitation "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task" reflects the improvements to the functioning of a computer as described in the specification. See id. Specifically, the ARP stated that the claimed limitation "constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates." See id.
Like the specification in Desjardins, the instant specification recites improvements to the functionality of a computer. For example, the Specification recites "the meeting insight system can also improve efficiency over prior systems. For example, by incorporating functionality for processing contextual data for past, ongoing, and upcoming video calls, the meeting insight system natively includes the capability to generate intelligent coaching insights within the same computer application that transmits video streams for a video call. Thus, rather than requiring a client device and/or servers to run multiple applications, the meeting insight system preserves computational resources by running only a single computer application that includes functionality for facilitating video calls and generating coaching insights." See Specification at 1 [0052]."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks.
In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO).
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field.
In the Applicant’s case, para. [0052] provides in a conclusory manner that “rather than requiring a client device and/or servers to run multiple computer applications (e.g., one for a video call and another for searching and sharing content items), the meeting insight system preserves computational resources by running only a single computer application that includes functionality for facilitating video calls and generating coaching insights at various stages, as described herein.” This is reasonably understood as “a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Further, Applicant respectfully submits that, like the claims at issue in Desjardins, the currently amended claims include limitations that "constitute an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates." Specifically, the currently amended independent claims recite "training a communication effectivity model by: utilizing the communication effectivity model to generate a predicted communication effectivity score from training data; comparing the predicted communication effectivity score to a ground truth communication effectivity score that corresponds to the training data to determine a measure of loss; and adjusting parameters of the communication effectivity model according to the measure of loss." Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that by reciting limitations that "constitute an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates," the currently amended independent claims reflect the improvements to the functioning of a computer as described in the specification, thus integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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 Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00. 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, 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights