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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 previously canceled.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-23 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered and found to be persuasive.
None of the cited documents by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in the independent claims as amended, nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. The pending claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-23 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
In conclusion, the Examiner withdraws the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been frequently identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. For example, normalizing data is often viewed as a mathematical or logical organization of information. This is also can be performed by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The present claims as amended do no provide additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments in page 13 regarding the active system that controls the transmission or retention of data based on real time analysis are not persuasive because controlling transmitting and retention of data is not an actual control of a machine like the Diamond v. Diehr case. Transmitting and retention of data or routing data are viewed as providing access or blocking a user which is not eligible and not a control of a machine. Finally, Applicant’s arguments in page 14 “combination of features, normalizing disparate APIs, identifying risk, and executing a remedial action, represents an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea” are automating a manual process which cannot be considered as significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments pages 7-9 are not persuasive. Argument “The Specification identifies a technical problem wherein IT administrators must manually stitch together conversations from multiple disparate communications platforms (e.g., email, chat, SMS, voice) to identify risks. See Specification at [0003]. Claim 1 provides a technological solution resulting in a system that is "more efficient, use less resources, and be more usable." See Specification at [0003]” is a strong indication of automating a manual task. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, simply automating a manual process is ineligible because it falls under the judicial exception for abstract ideas and fails to provide a technological improvement to computer functionality itself.
In People.ai, Inc. v. Clari Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that automating a longstanding, manual business process using a computer fails patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present 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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-23 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-23 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing visual representations of communications between two or more participants relating to a search query.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “detecting risk in electronic communications ingesting communication data from a plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms, the communication data relating to communications between two or more participants in an enterprise and including different types of media; normalizing the communication data ingesting communication data from a plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms, the communication data relating to communications between two or more participants in an enterprise and including different types of media; normalizing the communication data ingested from the plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms by maintaining an identity mapping that links multiple platform- specific identifiers to a single user identity; aggregating and analyzing the normalized communication data, based on the identity mapping, to identify risk; enabling a user to submit a search query relating to participants or subject matters, including criteria for communications exhibiting an identified risk level; presenting search results, including visual representations of communications between two or more participants across the plurality of heterogeneous platforms relating to the search query, wherein the visual representations include a communication graph showing aggregated counts of different media types derived from the plurality of heterogeneous platforms and exchanged between the two or more participants; and executing a remedial action for the communications exhibiting the identified risk level to limit or remediate the identified risk”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for providing visual representations of communications between two or more participants relating to a search query. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 9 and 17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-23 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for providing visual representations of communications between two or more participants relating to a search query. As a result, claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-23 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “a system for”, “comprising: a memory; a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by the processor, the set of instructions comprising instructions for:”, “providing a user interface enabling a user to”, “over the user interface”, and “automatically”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “ingesting” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “ingesting” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further recites “A method comprising: ingesting communication data from a plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms” and claim 17 further recites “A computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 9 and 17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 9, and 17. As a result, claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-23 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “a system for”, “comprising: a memory; a processor; and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by the processor, the set of instructions comprising instructions for:”, “providing a user interface enabling a user to”, “over the user interface”, and “automatically”. The step of “ingesting” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “ingesting” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 9 further recites “A method comprising: ingesting communication data from a plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms” and claim 17 further recites “A computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 9 and 17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-23 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 9, and 17. As a result, claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18-23 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raanani et al. (US 20180096271 A1) teaches automatically determining deals at risk by analyzing conversations of representatives with customers. A risk identification system retrieves recordings of various conversations, extracts features of each of the conversations, and analyzes the features to determine if any of the conversations includes features that are indicative of a deal discussed in that conversation being at risk. By performing such an analysis of conversations, the risk identification system can identify a number of deals that are at risk and generate a report of such deals and notify a consumer user of the risk identification system of such deals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights