DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the remarks filed 12 April 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are currently pending.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The Remarks at page 1 appear to indicate that amendments have been made to the claims; however, no amendments appear in the claims filed 12 April 2026.
Applicant’s arguments relating to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that recited limitations "cannot practically be performed mentally" and that "none" of the claim limitations "can be practically or meaningfully performed in the human mind." Remarks at 1 and 2. As indicated in previous response to remarks, the claims are not found to fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Rather, the claims fall into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, which does not require analysis of whether limitations can be performed mentally or in the human mind.
Applicant argues "the claims are not directed to advertising per se, but do the technical manner in which computing systems generate, render, delivery, and escalate personalized content through integrated software components." Remarks at 2. Whether the claims are directed to "advertising per se" is not part of the analysis in Step 2A Prong One. Rather, the question is if the claims recite a judicial exception. One such judicial exception is certain methods of organizing human activity which includes advertising, marketing, or sales activities. The present claim do recite advertising activities.
Applicant argues that the claim "produces a concrete technical outcome that improves operations of outbound interaction system during the marketing campaign of a tenant that is operated via a cloud-based contact center platform" Remarks at 3. If Applicant is arguing that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, support from the specification is required. Applicant does not indicate this support and Examiner does not find support in the specification for such a conclusion. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that "under Berkheimer, any assertion that this ordered combination is "well-understood, routine, and conventional" must be supported by evidence, not conclusory statements." Remarks at 3. The present and previous rejections do not make any claims about well-understood, routine, and conventional combinations. As indicated in MPEP 2106.05(A), claims can fall into the "apply it" bucket rather than the "well-understood, routine, convention" bucket. The "apply it" bucket, as is the case for the present claims, does not invoke Berkheimer.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 10 each recite the limitation “thus improving engagement of the customer and effectiveness of the outbound conversational marketing campaign.” These limitation recite an intended result of a positively recited process step and are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
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 1-7 and 10-16 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
Claims 1-7 recite a method which is considered a process. Claims 10-16 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite the concept of generating personalized content for an agent to use during an interaction with a customer (see “(i) receive details of the customer and details of the outbound conversational marketing campaign of the tenant; (ii) create a prompt-text based on the received details of the customer and campaign details; (iii) generate the personalized content for the interaction with the customer in text-format by executing the LLM AI engine with the trained model and the created prompt-text; (iv) store a text-file with the generated personalized content for the interaction in text-format for the interaction in the contents-database and convert the personalized content in text-format in the text-file to an audio-format and store as an audio-file in the contents-database; (v) play the audio-file to the customer and connect the agent to the interaction when the customer indicates an interest in offerings of the outbound conversational marketing campaign by dialing to the customer, wherein the dialing to the customer is performed by operating the ACD software with the details of the customer; (vi) retrieve the text-file for the interaction; and (vii) send the retrieved text-file to a computerized-device of the agent to present the generated personalized content for the interaction in text-format that is in the text-file, via a display unit that is associated to the computerized-device, wherein the generated personalized content for the interaction in text-format is used by the agent as a guidance during the interaction with the customer” in claim 10, for example). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including advertising activities. Thus, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 further limit the concept recited in claims 1 and 10 by receiving additional information about customers including a customer list. These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claims 2 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 12 further limit the concept recited in claims 2 and 11 by receiving additional information about customers and the campaign such as campaign name, customer name, customer hobbies, etc. These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claims 3 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 13 further limit the concept recited in claims 1 and 10 by embedding customer and campaign details in a template to create prompt-text. These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claims 4 and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 further limit the concept recited in claims 3 and 12 by training a model using known information. These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claims 5 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 15 further limit the concept recited in claims 1 and 10 by continuously training the trained model based on interactions. These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claims 6 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further limit the concept recited in claims 6 and 15 by further defining the data. These limitations do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claims 7 and 16 recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the identified abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a cloud-based contact center platform with Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) software (claims 1-9) or a system comprising one or more processors; an Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) software associated to the cloud-based contact center platform; a computerized-device; a display unit that is associated to the computerized-device; a models-database, and a contents-database; a memory to store the plurality of databases; and a trained model for a Large Language Model (LLM) Artificial intelligence (AI) engine that is stored in a models-database (claims 10-18) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The platform or system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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 Step 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights