DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 09/04/2026. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claim 21 has been newly added. Therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, Claim 1 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), Claim 9 recites a machine (i.e., a thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), Claim 17 recites
a manufacture (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
3. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
4. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite:
“in response to receiving an incoming communication request from a customer, the incoming communication request including a customer identifier, i) placing the incoming communication request for assignment to an agent, and ii) initiating…to generate a customer profile summary based on customer profile data associated with the customer identifier, comprising: retrieving customer profile data associated with the customer identifier;”, “retrieving event data relating to a current and past interactions of the customer…;”, “pre-processing…the customer profile data and the event data, the pre-processing comprising filtering the customer profile data and the event data in accordance with a set of predefined business rules to identify a subset of the customer profile data and event data relevant to the incoming communication request”, and “formatting the subset for inclusion as context data of a prompt;”, “generating the prompt for use as input, the prompt including at least an instruction and the context data, the instruction formulated to instruct…to analyze the customer profile data included in the context data and to generate a customer profile summary based on the customer profile data;”, “receiving as output…the customer profile summary;”, “storing…, the customer profile summary;” and “processing the incoming communication request…”, “the customer profile summary having been generated and stored…prior to…”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea for receiving and processing an incoming customer request and preparing a customer profile summary with an invitation to aid a customer service agent which encompasses concepts including commercial interactions, (i.e., marketing or sales activities, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions (i.e., social activities), and mental processes, (i.e., observations, evaluations, opinions, judgment), that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04
The Applicant’s Specification at [0003]A cloud-based customer data platform (“CDP”) is a software system that collects, organizes, and manages customer data from various sources and touchpoints. A CDP creates a unified and comprehensive customer profile that can be used by marketing, sales, and other teams for personalized communication and better decision-making. CDPs help companies improve customer experiences, target marketing campaigns, and gain insights into customer behavior and preferences..
Consistent with the disclosure the limitations of “in response to receiving”, “placing”, “initiating”, “retrieving”, “pre-processing”, “storing” in the context of the claim describe how data and interactions for a customer engaging with an agent are collected and manipulated into a prompt format necessary for generating a customer profile summary which is then provided to the agent as insight while interacting and responding to the customer’s request pertains to concepts relating to commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or interactions between people because these are tasks and activities typically performed by contact/call center enterprises that monitor and assist with customer incoming service requests. Also, the limitations of “pre-processing” and “generate” in the context of the claim recite mental processes for collecting information and recognizing certain information from the collected information according to one or more rules to format a prompt and/or generate a customer profile summary which evaluations that may be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a computer-implemented method”, “a digital engagement service”, “a queue”, “an asynchronous process”, “the asynchronous process executing while the incoming communication request awaits assignment in the queue, without delaying processing of the incoming communication request, the asynchronous process”, “one or more communication channels”, “by a pre-processing service”, “a large language model (LLM)”, “the LLM”, “from the LLM”, “in a data store”, “from the data store”, “via a user interface of an agent dashboard”, “a system”, “one or more processors;”, “a memory storage device storing instructions thereon”, “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform operations comprising:” – see claims 1, 9, and 17 are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification (See. Fig. 1, ¶ 0016-0024, 0054, 0077). Thus, because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components being used to perform generic computer functions in light of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claim add the words “apply it” (with the judicial exception), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional element of: “by presenting…an available agent an invitation to accept the incoming communication request, the invitation presented in conjunction with the customer profile summary retrieved…, wherein an acceptance of the invitation by the available agent causes establishment of a communication connection between the customer and the agent.” adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data output/transmission, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of: “for providing a customer profile summary to an agent in, the method comprising:” is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
6. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a computer-implemented method”, “a digital engagement service”, “a queue”, “an asynchronous process”, “the asynchronous process executing while the incoming communication request awaits assignment in the queue, without delaying processing of the incoming communication request, the asynchronous process”, “one or more communication channels”, “by a pre-processing service”, “a large language model (LLM)”, “the LLM”, “from the LLM”, “in a data store”, “from the data store”, “via a user interface of an agent dashboard”, “a system”, “one or more processors;”, “a memory storage device storing instructions thereon”, “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to perform operations comprising:” – see claims 1, 9, and 17 at best amounts to nothing more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional elements of: “by presenting…an available agent an invitation to accept the incoming communication request, the invitation presented in conjunction with the customer profile summary retrieved…, wherein an acceptance of the invitation by the available agent causes establishment of a communication connection between the customer and the agent.” was considered insignificant extra solution activity under Step 2A Prong Two and must be re-evaluated at Step 2B to determine whether these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) discusses the Symantec, TLI Communications, and OIP Techs court decisions which indicate “receiving and transmitting data over a network” and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. Thus, when viewed individually and in combination with the claimed invention, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
7. Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 are dependent claims of 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 2, 10, 18 recite “wherein retrieving the customer profile data further comprises: utilizing a profile connector to map the customer identifier to a system-generated unique identifier (ID) for the customer, wherein the customer identifier is selected from the group consisting of a phone number, a username, an email address, an instant messaging (IM) handle, and a social media account name; and transmitting the system-generated unique ID to retrieve a set of customer attributes associated with the system-generated unique ID and a set of customer events associated with the system-generated unique ID, wherein the profile connector operates to facilitate translation between the customer identifier and the system-generated unique ID to ensure accurate retrieval of the customer profile data.” which further narrows how the mental process recited in the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. For example, collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected data set is a mental process. Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite “wherein the instruction formulated for the LLM further specifies a maximum length for the customer profile summary to be generated by the LLM.” which further describes the data/information recited in the claim. This step narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 4 and 12 recite “wherein the maximum length is defined in terms of a number of words, characters, or sentences.” which further describes the data/information recited in the claim, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 5 and 13 recite “further comprising: incorporating into the context data for the prompt a text-based transcript of a prior communication session with the customer, wherein the prior communication session was with a first agent and the inclusion of the text-based transcript enables the LLM to enhance the generation of the customer profile summary by considering content of the prior communication session in addition to the customer profile data.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 6 and 14 recite “wherein the text-based transcript includes a description of a specific customer need or inquiry expressed during the prior communication session, and the LLM utilizes this description to prioritize relevant aspects of the customer profile data in the generation of the customer profile summary.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract, claims 7 and 15 recites “further comprising: incorporating into the context data for the prompt a text-based transcript of a prior communication session with the customer, wherein the prior communication session was with an automated chatbot and the inclusion of the text-based transcript enables the LLM to enhance the generation of the customer profile summary by considering content of the prior communication session in addition to the customer profile data.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract., claims 8 and 16 recites “wherein presenting the customer profile summary to the agent further comprises: displaying the customer profile summary within a graphical user interface (GUI) of an agent dashboard, wherein the customer profile summary is visually distinguished from other elements within the GUI to draw attention of the agent; and organizing the customer profile summary in the GUI based on a predetermined hierarchy of information importance, such that customer details are presented prominently at the top of the customer profile summary, enabling the agent to grasp key aspects of the customer profile summary at a glance before accepting the incoming communication request..” adds insignificant extra solution activity, i.e., data output/transmission, to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), claim 21 recites “wherein the set of predefined business rules prioritizes event data representing recent interactions of the customer over event data representing older interactions, and filters out redundant customer profile data, to identify the subset relevant to the incoming communication request.” which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. When considered individually and in combination with the judicial exception, none of the limitations recited in the dependent claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant further argues “First, the amended claims recite "in response to receiving an incoming communication request from a customer, the incoming communication request including a customer identifier, i) placing the incoming communication request in a queue for assignment to an agent, and ii) initiating an asynchronous process to generate a customer profile summary." Generation is triggered by the arrival of the communication request itself, using nothing more than the request and the customer identifier it carries. No human requests the summary; the platform initiates generation automatically, at the earliest moment the need for the summary can be known, which is the moment the request from the customer arrives. This element solves the speed dimension of the problem at its root: it moves the start of the work to the front of the timeline.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the limitations discussed by Applicant were considered as part of the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. For example, the limitations focus upon performing commercial interactions including how a contact/call center handles an incoming communication request after it is received from a customer. Even though the asserted claims require the use of a computer, using a computer to perform the steps does not preclude the limitations from being within the certain methods organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. The claims here are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of generating a customer profile summary, however, the speed increases comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Second, the amended claims recite that the asynchronous process executes "while the incoming communication request awaits assignment in the queue, without delaying processing of the incoming communication request." This is the latency solution recited as a claim element. The retrieval, filtering, prompt construction, and language model inference all run in parallel with the queue residency the request would experience anyway, so the time cost of generating the summary is hidden behind time the request already spends waiting for an agent. The summary imposes no added latency on the communication itself; the claims recite a pipeline that races the queue, not a lookup performed after assignment.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the remarks discuss benefits for performing the step which does not automatically indicate eligibility. The limitations discussed by Applicant were considered additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. For example, the support for the “asynchronous process” is described in the Specification [¶ 0054, 0077] and reproduced below:
[0054] In operation, when a customer or user initiates a communication request 514 through the digital engagement service, the workflow automation engine 500 triggers (e.g., 516-A and 516-B) the integration service 502 to fetch (e.g., 518-A and 518-B) relevant customer data from the CDP 504. Simultaneously, event data related to the customer’s current and past interactions is retrieved via the timeline service 508, as shown with reference 520-A, 520-B, 520-C, and returned (522-A, 522-B and 522-C). This data is processed and compiled at the AI summarization service 506 to formulate a prompt, including at least an instruction and context data, for the LLM 106. The prompt is provided as input 524 to the LLM service 106, which then returns an output 526. The output from the LLM, processed by the Language Model Service 106, is then stored 528 in the data store 510 and made available to the digital engagement service to inform the ongoing customer interaction. Accordingly, when the incoming communication request from the user is matched with an available agent, the user interface of the available agent is updated to present the customer profile summary, as obtained from the data store 510, along with an invitation to accept the incoming communication request from the customer or user.
[0077] The process initiates when an incoming communication request from a customer is received 802, triggering an asynchronous process designed to enrich the agent’s understanding of the customer without delaying the service workflow 804. The system queries the CDP for detailed customer profile data using the customer identifier provided with the request 806, ensuring that all relevant customer information is considered in generating the profile summary.
As best understood from the Specification, the asynchronous process allows the computer or system to fetch customer information simultaneously to generate a customer profile summary. The step is results-oriented as there no technical details reflected in the claim relating to how the computer or system performs the step. The asynchronous process is described in a generic manner in light of the disclosure and recited in the claim as a step that operates in its normal or ordinary capacity to aid in performing the abstract idea. The asynchronous process step adds nothing more than instructions to be implemented by a computer. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Third, the amended claims recite "pre-processing, by a pre-processing service, the customer profile data and the event data, the pre-processing comprising filtering the customer profile data and the event data in accordance with a set of predefined business rules to identify a subset of the customer profile data and event data relevant to the incoming communication request, and formatting the subset for inclusion as context data of a prompt." This is the relevance solution recited as a claim element. The expansive, fine-grained profile and cross-channel event data are distilled, under predefined business rules, to the subset relevant to this particular incoming request, so that the agent receives full and relevant information rather than an unusable data dump, and so that the language model receives a bounded, relevant context rather than the entire profile. See ¶ [0088], [0113].” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the limitations discussed by Applicant were considered as part of the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. For example, the limitations focus upon the “pre-processing” step which is part of performing commercial interactions including how a contact/call center processes customer profile data and event data according to rules and formats the data into a prompt. Even though the asserted claims require the use of a computer to filter and/or format the data, using a computer to perform the steps does not preclude the limitations from being within the certain methods organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. As for the type of information or data being operated upon, this does not alter the analysis at Step 2A Prong One. The claims here are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Fourth, the amended claims recite generating a prompt that includes the instruction and the filtered subset as context data, submitting it to the large language model, and receiving the customer profile summary as output; and fifth, the amended claims recite "storing, in a data store, the customer profile summary" and presenting the invitation to the available agent "in conjunction with the customer profile summary retrieved from the data store, the customer profile summary having been generated and stored in the data store by the asynchronous process prior to the presenting of the invitation," with acceptance of the invitation establishing the communication connection. The store-then-retrieve sequence is what converts the parallel computation into readiness at the moment of assignment: because the summary was generated and persisted while the request waited in the queue, it is already available when the invitation is rendered, and the agent is equipped at the instant of acceptance.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the limitations discussed by Applicant were considered as part of the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. For example, the limitations focus upon the “generating” and “storing” steps which are part of performing commercial interactions including how a contact/call center processes and stores the customer profile data. Even though the asserted claims require the use of a LLM in conjunction with a computer, using a computer and LLM to perform the steps does not preclude the limitations from being within the certain methods organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. As for the type of information or data being operated upon, this does not alter the analysis at Step 2A Prong One. The claims here are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The amended claims are therefore not results-oriented. They recite when generation is triggered (upon receipt of the incoming communication request), where it runs (in parallel with queue residency, without delaying the request), what bounds the language model input (the subset identified by business-rule filtering as relevant to the request), and when and from where the output is consumed (retrieved from the data store at presentation of the invitation, having been stored before the invitation is presented). Each of these is an architectural constraint on the operation of the digital engagement platform, recited in the claim elements themselves.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the remarks discuss the architecture and each of the limitations recited within the abstract idea to propose a technical problem. It is important for Applicant to note that abstract ideas can be generally described at different levels of abstraction and merely adding limitations for automating a commercial processes are not enough. The sequence or timing of steps being performed discussed by Applicant narrows or further describe how to carry out the abstract idea rather than provide a technological solution to a technological problem. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant argues “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the additional elements must be evaluated both individually and as an ordered combination. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a).
The Office Action evaluates the additional elements only individually, concluding seriatim that each is recited at a high level of generality. Respectfully, that analysis does not address the ordered combination that the amended claims recite: initiation of generation in response to the incoming communication request itself, execution of the generation pipeline asynchronously while the request awaits assignment in the queue, storage of the resulting summary, and retrieval of the stored summary at presentation of the acceptance invitation.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the specificity of the presently recited techniques does not automatically lead towards eligibility. Whether viewing the claim limitations individually or as an ordered combination, the asserted claims at best merely restate the abstract idea discussed under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Nor does Applicant provide anything inventive in the ordered combination of elements. See Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1341 ("The steps are organized in a completely conventional way—data are first processed, sent, and once sent, information about the transmission is recorded."). So too here, the asserted claims are organized in an expected way—receiving customer request, generating a customer profile summary, pre-processing information, storing and retrieving customer profile for an agent. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “In BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. That is exactly the character of the claimed arrangement here: whether or not queues, pre-processing services, language models, and data stores are individually known, the claimed arrangement of them, a generation pipeline triggered by the request and racing the queue residency of the request itself so that a business-rule-filtered summary is stored before the invitation is presented, restructures the timing and data flow of the platform itself to solve the latency and relevance problem documented at [0023].” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. In the BASOM court decision, the courts held the claims recited a technological solution and the claims were considered an improvement to computer technology. The present claims and remarks do not recite a comparable technological solution similar to the claims in BASCOM. The passage from Applicant’s Specification [0023] has been reproduced below:
The language model service 106 provides pre-trained, generative AI models like LLMs and other tools to build and deploy custom trained and fine-tuned models. These models can power predictive analytics and personalization for the digital engagement service 102. In some instances, the language model service 106 may also improve model accuracy by continuously training on new data received from the digital engagement service 102 interactions. These models may power functionality facilitated by the digital engagement service 102, like generating customer profile summaries for presentation to an agent, generating next-best-action recommendations, generating post-communication customer summary records, and automated task triggering. In some examples, the language model service 106 may also continuously improve model accuracy and performance by ingesting new interaction data from the digital engagement service 102.
As best understood from the cited passage from the Specification it merely describes benefits the language model service 106 may provide in a general manner. There are no technical details discussed with respect to the claimed arrangement of computing components/steps or latency problems. These benefits relating to the claimed arrangement are discussed in a conclusory manner and are not considered improvements to computing or machine-learning technology. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “This ordered combination distinguishes the claims from those in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), on which the rejection relies. The claims in Electric Power Group collected information, analyzed it, and displayed results, without any architectural constraint on how the underlying system performed those functions. The amended claims here constrain the architecture: the same customer profile summary, generated synchronously after agent assignment, would fall outside the claims and would defeat the stated purpose of the invention, because it would delay the service workflow the claims exist to protect. See [0104] (the asynchronous process enriches the agent's understanding "without delaying the service workflow"). A claim whose elements distinguish between architectures on the basis of timing and data flow is not a claim to a result; it is a claim to a particular technical means.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis. Here, the reply relies upon the claimed architecture and timing of the processes being performed by the limitations which does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. For example, the courts have previously held “the utility of an abstract idea is not determinative of its eligibility”. See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. V. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (automated data synthesis technology did not make claims eligible even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (an abstract idea's usefulness or tax benefits did not confer eligibility); In re Mohapatra, 842F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible."). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Nor is the presentation of the invitation insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), as the Office Action asserts. The claimed invitation is presented in conjunction with the pre-generated, stored customer profile summary, and acceptance of the invitation causes establishment of the communication connection between the customer and the agent. The invitation element is thus the integration point at which the asynchronous pipeline joins the communication routing of the platform: it is where the readiness achieved by the queue-parallel architecture is consumed, and it is operative in establishing the connection itself. It is not a mere output of data. Cf. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims reciting a specific manner of presenting information that improved the functioning of the device held eligible).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, presentation of data even in particular formatted manner and as a result of a standard operation such as presenting and/or accepting an invitation to establish a communication connection between an agent and customer constitutes post solution activity which cannot support claim 1 as having either a practical application or inventive concept. The original Specification [Fig. 7] describes processes in conjunction with user interface for displaying an invitation, outputting, and tailoring customer profile information/insight for an agent. Presenting an invitation to an agent as a result of asynchronously processing a customer’s profile does not improve computer functionality or any other computing technology or provide a technological solution to a technical problem. See Ameranth, 792 F. App'x at 787 (synchronous communications and automatic formatting for different handheld devices, without more, is an abstract idea) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Finally, the record itself confirms that the claimed ordered combination is not a well-understood, routine, and conventional arrangement. The analysis in the Office Action itself under 35 U.S.C. § 103 assembles three references, drawn from contact center session management, on-demand support ticket summarization, and abstraction-controlled prompt engineering, and, as discussed below, identifies no disclosure in any of them of initiating summary generation in response to an incoming communication request, asynchronously with queue placement, with the stored summary retrieved at presentation of the acceptance invitation. An arrangement that three references selected by the Office do not show is not one that can be dismissed as conventional without evidentiary support. See MPEP § 2106.05(d); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner asserts these conclusory allegations made by Applicant that the combination of prior art references art lacked elements of the asserted claims are insufficient to integrate the claims into a practical application. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That some of the eleven steps were not previously employed in this art is not enough standing alone to confer patent eligibility upon the claims at issue.") See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea."). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “For at least these reasons, the amended claims are directed to a specific technical solution, recited in the claim elements, to a specific technical problem documented in the specification itself, and any alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21 depend from claims 1, 9, and 17 and are eligible at least for the same reasons. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As previously explained, the specificity of the presently recited techniques does not confer eligibility. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) with respect to the dependent claims The present rejection presents findings for each of the claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, 19, and 21 and explains why the additional limitations recited by these claims do not impart subject matter eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-9, filed 09/04/2026, with respect to claims 1-19 and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections over Geppert (EP 2239930 A1) in view of Knudson (US 2024/0412048 A1) in further view of Gardner (WO 2025/042780 A1) of 06/04/26 has been 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 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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
