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 .
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 10/02/2025, Applicant, on 02/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
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, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner introduced the newly cited reference Siebel. Seibel, as explain under the 35 USC § 103 below, teaches communication types and count between two users. As such, Applicant’s arguments in this regard are moot.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 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.
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 ingested from the plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms; aggregating and analyzing the normalized communication data to identify risk; submit a search query relating to participants or subject matters, inclining criteria for communications exhibiting an identified risk level; presenting search results, including visual representations of communications between two or more participants relating to the search query wherein the visual representations include a communication graph showing aggregated counts of different media types exchanged between the two or more participants: and automatically 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”. 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”. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Onusko (US 20230013431 A1) hereinafter Onusko3431 in view of Siebel Thomas (WO 2022271686 A2) hereinafter Siebel
Regarding claim 1. Onusko3431 A system for detecting risk in electronic communications 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: [Onusko3431, claim 12 teaches a system and para. 0108 teaches a processor and a tangible computer-readable medium. Also, see para. 0003-0005, time and money to store and archive increasing volumes digital documents and data, aggressive in enforcing regulations relate to electronically stored information. Additionally, criminal cases and civil litigation frequently employ use of electronic discovery (eDiscovery) tools… wherein involving risk detection in communication] 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; [Onusko3431, Abstract, Onusko3431 teaches “A unified context-aware content archive system allows enterprises to manage, enforce, monitor, moderate, and review business records associated with a variety of communication modalities.”] normalizing the communication data ingested from the plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms; aggregating and analyzing the normalized communication data to identify risk; [Onusko3431, claim 2, Onusko3431 teaches “normalizing, via one of the one or more computer systems, the information associated with each of the plurality of documents into a single information structure to generate normalized information.” Also, see para. 0003-0005, time and money to store and archive increasing volumes digital documents and data, aggressive in enforcing regulations relate to electronically stored information. Additionally, criminal cases and civil litigation frequently employ use of electronic discovery (eDiscovery) tools… wherein involving risk detection in communication]
Onusko3431 does not specifically teach, however; Siebel teaches providing a user interface enabling a user to submit a search query relating to participants or subject matters, including criteria for communications exhibiting an identified risk level [Siebel, para. 0166, Siebel teaches “In some embodiments, the type system, or types or functions defined by the type system, performs data manipulation language (DML) operations, such as structured query language (SQL) CREATE/UPDATE operations, for persisting types to a database in structured tables. The type system may also generate SQL for reading data from the database and materializing/returning results as types” Wherein user’s query. Further, see claim 4 “customer satisfaction, customer churn, customer retention, demand forecasting, and product forecasting; and the one or more objectives of the selected AI CRM application are targeted at scoring the CRM metric for at least one of: one or more customers” wherein involved risk] and presenting, over the user interface, search results, including visual representations of communications between two or more participants relating to the search query wherein the visual representations include a communication graph showing aggregated counts of different media types exchanged between the two or more participants: [Siebel, para. 0400-0401, Siebel teaches “A comparison 2526 of various types of activities of the current team or selected representative(s) relative to other teams or representatives is also provided. Here, the comparison 2526 plots the numbers of different types of activities performed by the current team or selected representative(s) compared to the averages or other numbers of the same types of activities performed by other teams or representatives. In this particular example, the specific activities used here include the number of emails sent, the number of emails received, the numbers of calls placed, the number of meetings conducted, and the number of proposals submitted. [0401] The user interface 2400 here may be used to perform various functions, such as to drill down into the performance of any team of representatives and understand how a pipeline has changed over time for those representatives” Wherein user interface for result visualization including type and number of communications. See also figure 26D-1, thicker and thinner lines. In addition, para. 0406 teaches number of interactions] and automatically executing a remedial action for the communications exhibiting the identified risk level to limit or remediate the identified risk [Siebel, para. 0434, Siebel teaches “Vendor management can be used to manage performance of all vendors providing products and services, proactively flag service issues, delays, and deteriorating relationships, and engage vendors to remediate so that critical operations remain uninterrupted” Wherein remediation]
Onusko3431 teaches A unified context-aware content archive system allows enterprises to manage, enforce, monitor, moderate, and review business records associated with a variety of communication modalities and Siebel teaches customer relation management. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing and monitoring communication within an enterprise. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Onusko3431 to incorporate the teaching of Siebel by providing a user interface to submit query and visualize results such as number and type of communications. The motivation to combine Onusko3431 with Siebel has the advantage of more efficient processing of electronically stored information (ESI).
Regarding claim 2. Onusko3431 in view of Siebel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Onusko3431 teaches wherein the different types of media include text and audio [Onusko3431, para. 0049, Onusko3431 teaches “Accordingly, social media interactions may be collected for general storage and later search-ability. In one aspect, a social media interaction may include time points of communication events (e.g., an event transcript). Events may be determined corresponding to create, posts, updates, edit, modifications, deletion etc on artifacts associated with ESI systems. In another aspect, events may correspond to a blog, a chat, a video session, an audio recording” wherein audio and text media].
Regarding claim 3. Onusko3431 in view of Siebel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Onusko3431 teaches wherein the plurality of heterogeneous communication platforms include at least two of: an email platform, a chat platform, a video platform, and a voice platform [Onusko3431, para. 0052, Onusko3431 teaches “an email participants' direct communication may be determined by the members on the “To:” list of an originating email” and para. 0032, Onusko3431 teaches “Some examples of communication modalities for purposes of this disclosure include electronic mail (email), instant messaging/chat, web collaboration, video conferencing, voice telephony, social networks, and the like”].
Regarding claim 4. Onusko3431 in view of Siebel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Onusko3431 teaches wherein ingesting communication data includes making application programming interface (API) calls to one or more of the communication platforms [Onusko3431, para. 0084, Onusko3431 teaches “In a second, entitled (Data-at-Rest) active capture, ESI system 100 provides explicit intervention by software agents to enrich data along the pathway of communication between end points (users & device communications). Usually, this is done via an API or SPI complying with a well-defined protocol” see also 0050 and 0086].
Regarding claim 7. Onusko3431 in view of Siebel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Onusko3431 teaches wherein the visual representations of communications between two or more participants include a list of occurrences of communications between first and second participants [Onusko3431, 0009, Onusko3431 teaches “A transcript of the interaction is generated that includes a bounded definition defining a sequence of one or more events that occur during the interaction” wherein list of occurrences].
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 9 is directed to a method which is anticipated by Onusko3431 claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 15, claims 10-12 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-4 and 7, respectively; therefore, claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-4 and 7, respectively. Claims 2-4 and 7are system claims while claims 10-12 and 15 are directed to a method which is anticipated by Onusko3431 claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 17 is directed to a computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Onusko3431 para. 0108.
Regarding claims 18-20, claims 18-20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-3 and 7, respectively; therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-3 and 7, respectively. Claims 2-3 and 7are system claims while claims 18-20 are directed to a computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Onusko3431 para. 0108.
Regarding claim 21. Onusko3431 in view of Siebel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Onusko3431 does not specifically teach, however; Siebel teaches wherein the remedial action comprises at least one of: routing the communications to a compliance queue, preserving the communications for legal hold, or blocking the communications [Siebel, para. 0022, Siebel teaches “Using the predicted probabilities to apply the at least one of the one or more use case insights may include initiating one or more automated electronic communication actions including at least one of: scheduling a calendar event or virtual meeting with a customer; generating an electronic communication or social media posting; triggering an online digital marketing campaign; instructing a message for an automated chatbot; and pushing a digital alert message to a mobile device.” Wherein pushing a digital alert message to a mobile device is equivalent to routing the communications to a compliance queue]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Onusko3431 to incorporate the teaching of Siebel by providing a user interface to submit query and visualize results such as number and type of communications and routing the communications to a compliance queue. The motivation to combine Onusko3431 with Siebel has the advantage of more efficient processing of electronically stored information (ESI).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 21 is a system claim while claim 22 is directed to a method which is anticipated by Onusko3431 claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 21 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 21 is a system claim while claim 23 is directed to a computer programming product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is anticipated by Onusko3431 para. 0108.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Onusko3431 in view of Siebel, and in further view of Nadir et al. (US 20230370434 A1)
Regarding claim 8. Onusko3431 in view of Siebel teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (as above). Onusko3431 in view of Siebel does not specifically teach, however; Nadir teaches wherein, one or more of the occurrences of communications between first and second participants include an indication of a risk level relating to the respective communication [Nadir, claim 1, Nadir teaches “determining, based on the analysis, that the occurrence of the one or more conditions poses a risk; and based on a determining that the occurrence of the one or more conditions poses a risk, taking one or more remedial actions.” wherein risk identification. See para. 0048 for communication interface]
Onusko3431 teaches A unified context-aware content archive system allows enterprises to manage, enforce, monitor, moderate, and review business records associated with a variety of communication modalities and Nadir teaches API connections to heterogeneous collaboration platforms to analyze elements of conversations to identify regulatory. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing and monitoring communication within an enterprise. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Onusko3431 in view of Siebel to incorporate the teaching of Nadir by providing a user interface to submit query and visualize results. The motivation to combine Onusko3431 in view of Siebel with Nadir has the advantage of taking one or more remedial actions when determining that the occurrence of the one or more conditions poses a risk.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 8 is a system claim while claim 16 is directed to a method which is anticipated by Onusko3431 claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 02/02/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
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) 273-8300.
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