DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 05/26/2026. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 13, 15-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 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.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
5. Claims 1, 9, and 17 recites:
“in response to receiving an incoming communication request from a customer, the incoming communication requesting including a customer identifier, i) placing the incoming communication request for assignment to an agent, and ii) initiating a process to generate a customer profile summary based on customer profile data associated with the customer identifier, the process 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…”
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 such as a commercial interaction, (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 is 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 pertain 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.
6. 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”, “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). 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.
7. 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”, “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 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.” were 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 20 recites “further comprising: placing the incoming communication request in a queue for assignment to an available agent, and initiating an asynchronous process to generate and store the customer profile summary based on the customer profile data associated with the customer identifier, wherein the asynchronous process includes customer profile data, generating a prompt for use as input to a large language model (LLM), receiving the customer profile summary as output from the LLM, and storing the customer profile summary in a data store; and when an agent becomes available, processing the queued communication request by generating an invitation to accept the incoming communication request, wherein the invitation is presented via a user interface of an agent dashboard and includes the customer profile summary obtained from the data store, thereby ensuring that the agent is equipped with relevant customer insights prior to engaging with the customer.” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
10. Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert (EP 2239930 A1) in view of Knudson (US 2024/0412048 A1) in further view of Gardner (WO 2025/042780 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 20, Geppert discloses
a computer-implemented method, system, and non-transitory machine-readable storage medium for providing a customer profile summary (¶ 0059, 0064: discloses a profile summary) in a digital engagement service (0058, 0064: discloses monitoring/managing communications in a contact center), comprising:
one or more processors (¶ 0025: discloses processor 120);
a memory storage device (¶ 0025: discloses memory) storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
in response to receiving an incoming communication request from a customer (¶ 0034: discloses an incoming communication session can be an incoming phone call, incoming instant message, incoming text message, etc.), i) placing the incoming communication request in a queue for assignment to an agent (¶ 0033: discloses the system includes a queue of callers or customers waiting to be picked up by an agent.), and
processing the incoming communication request in the queue by presenting via a user interface of an agent dashboard of an available agent an invitation to accept the incoming communication request (¶ 0031, 0034-0035: discloses a call center agent display in its initial state shows a queue of calling or contacting parties to indicate what the agent can expect. The call center agent can interact with the incoming communication session by clicking onto an accept icon.),
the invitation presented in conjunction with the customer profile summary retrieved from the data store (¶ 0031, 0034-0035, 0058-0059, 0064: discloses the system presents a graphical user interface to contact center agent. The graphical elements can be an icon representing the caller and smart screen pops related to or describing the caller. The smart screen pops can include one or more of a profile, a profile summary),
wherein an acceptance of the invitation by the available agent causes establishment of a communication connection between the customer and the agent. (¶ 0035-0037: discloses the call center agent can interact with the incoming communication session by clicking onto an accept icon and the system 100 establishes a connection to the other party and displays to the call center agent 202 a graphical representation of the communication session with the other party on the screen. The real-time communication session is two-way tech support or customer service between Agent #619 and Frank Rose.)
The Geppert reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, the Knudson reference dynamically summarizes text including support tickets (¶ 0017) and teaches:
the incoming communication requesting including a customer identifier (¶ 0018, 0059) ii) initiating a process to generate a customer profile summary based on customer profile data associated with the customer identifier (¶ 0017: discloses the system receives a request from a user to generate a summary for a support agent to assist the customer.), the process comprising:
retrieving customer profile data associated with the customer identifier (¶ 0028: discloses the data processing module 412 pulls account level data from the data store);
generating the prompt for use as input to a large language model (LLM) (¶ 0028, 0038: discloses the data processing module 412 gives the account level data to the generate artificial models 426 that produce intelligent summaries of a customer’s account at any given time.), the prompt including at least an instruction and the context data (¶ 0029: discloses prompt 432 regarding customer account want to summarize and then the artificial intelligence platform generates the summary.); receiving as output from the LLM the customer profile summary (¶ 0018, 0034-0035, 0038, 0072: discloses the server outputs the summary of the customer account.); and storing, in a data store, the customer profile summary (¶ 0026, 0028: discloses sends data to data store 410 for storage with processed data that may be used to drive business decisions for a support organization.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Geppert, to include techniques for using generative artificial intelligence models to summarize customer account information, as disclosed by Knudson to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Knudson, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to support organization, so that summaries will help the support organization make timely decision on their customer accounts. (¶ 0038)
The combination of Geppert and Knudson does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Gardner reference is related to systems and methods for summarization of content using large language models, for example claims processors at an insurance company can use the system to summarize lengthy incident reports and supporting documents into condensed case summaries highlighting key details. (¶ 0002, 00246-00247, 00254, 00665, 001230) and teaches:
retrieving event data relating to a current and past interactions of the customer across one or more communication channels (¶ 00152-0153: discloses for a sales call, conversational context factors like user profile, dialog history, and business/sales details may be used to craft situationally appropriate responses.);
pre-processing, by a pre-processing service, the customer profile data and the event data (¶ 00341, 00975-00978: discloses metadata may provide a profile of the content for downstream decisions and pre-processing raw input to normalize them for downstream summarization steps.),
the pre-processing comprising filtering the customer profile data and the event data in accordance with a set of predefined business rules (¶ 0081, 00148-00149: discloses the prompt engineering applies techniques like sentence reordering, entity replacement, keyword insertion. ¶ 001100-001107: discloses to improve quality the system automatically constructs prompts engineered for the LLM vs just passing raw requests.) to identify a subset of the customer profile data and event data relevant to the incoming communication request (¶ 0081, 00148, 00185, 00194, 00849, 00977: discloses identifying key terms…the appropriate techniques are selected and combined to construct prompts customized for the content attributes, abstraction level, use case, and user profile. ¶ 001219, 001223: discloses analyzing customer feedback…this helps the company identify issues to enhance customer satisfaction.), and
formatting the subset for inclusion as context data of a prompt (¶ 0065-0066, 00183, 00287, 00976, 00978: discloses pre-processing structures the heterogeneous content into a standardized format.);
As can be seen from the passages of the Gardner reference, techniques for pre-processing customer current and historical data to be used in a prompt were known in the state of the art and previously implemented by systems that require standardized data for downstream summarization processes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Geppert and Knudson’s system and methods for generating a customer profile summary, to include the techniques for pre-processing the customer’s data needed for constructing a prompt, as disclosed by the teachings of Gardner to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by the Gardner reference, the motivation for the combination would have been to perform pre-processing in order to provide advantages for improved summarization accuracy. (¶ 00976, 00978)
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Geppert, Knudson, and Gardner discloses the computer-implemented method and system,
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 (Fig. 9, ¶ 0059, 0064: Geppert discloses the system 100 presents via a graphical user interface to a contact center agent smart screen pops related to a profile summary.), wherein the customer profile summary is visually distinguished from other elements within the GUI to draw attention of the agent (¶ 0059, 0064: Geppert discloses the set of connected graphical elements include smart screen pops related to the contact caller. The smart screen pops can include a profile and/or profile summary); 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 (¶ 0040, 0064: Geppert discloses the call center agent can customize which pieces of information appear in the smart screen pops and when smart screen pops occur.), enabling the agent to grasp key aspects of the customer profile summary at a glance before accepting the incoming communication request. (¶ 0031, 0033, 0035: Geppert discloses a call center agent display in its initial state shows a queue of calling or contacting parties to indicate what the agent can expect)
With respect to claim 20, Geppert discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, further comprising:
placing the incoming communication request in a queue for assignment to an available agent and when an agent becomes available (¶ 0031, 0033-0034: discloses the system 100 can further display either a queue of callers or customers waiting to be picked up by an agent or a short summary of such a queue),
processing the queued communication request by generating an invitation to accept the incoming communication request (¶ 0034: discloses the system 100 can represent the incoming communication session as an icon. The incoming call icon 514 can blink and/or provide some other notification to the user of the incoming call.),
wherein the invitation is presented via a user interface of an agent dashboard (¶ 0034: discloses the call center agent can interact with the incoming communication session by clicking onto an accept icon.) and includes the customer profile summary obtained from the data store (¶ 0064: discloses the system 100 presents via a graphical user interface to a contact center agent smart screen pops related to the contact center caller including a profile, profile summary.), thereby ensuring that the agent is equipped with relevant customer insights prior to engaging with the customer. (¶ 0031, 0033, 0035: discloses a call center agent display in its initial state shows a queue of calling or contacting parties to indicate what the agent can expect. An initial display can include smart screen pops of customer data such as account information, special privileges, products owned, and the like that are associated with each calling or contacting party in the agent’s queue.)
The Geppert reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, Knudson discloses:
initiating an asynchronous process to generate and store the customer profile summary based on the customer profile data associated with the customer identifier (¶ 0017: discloses the system receives a request from a user to generate a summary for a support agent to assist the customer.), wherein the asynchronous process includes retrieving customer profile data (¶ 0028: discloses the data processing module 412 pulls account level data from the data store), generating a prompt for use as input to a large language model (LLM) ¶ 0028, 0038: discloses the data processing module 412 gives the account level data to the generate artificial models 426 that produce intelligent summaries of a customer’s account at any given time.), receiving the customer profile summary as output from the LLM (¶ 0018, 0034-0035, 0038, 0072: discloses the server outputs the summary of the customer account.), and storing the customer profile summary in a data store (¶ 0026, 0028: discloses sends data to data store 410 for storage with processed data that may be used to drive business decisions for a support organization.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Geppert to include the features of initiating an asynchronous process to generate and store the customer profile summary based on the customer profile data associated with the customer identifier, wherein the asynchronous process includes retrieving customer profile data, generating a prompt for use as input to a large language model (LLM),receiving the customer profile summary as output from the LLM, and storing the customer profile summary in a data store;, as disclosed by Knudson to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Knudson, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages to support organization, so that summaries will help the support organization make timely decision on their customer accounts. (¶ 0038)
11. Claim(s) 3-7, 11-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert in view of Knudson in view of Gardner in further view of Manchandra (2024/0320595 A1)
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 19, the combination of Geppert and Knudson discloses the computer-implemented method, system, and non-transitory machine-readable medium,
wherein the instruction formulated for the LLM further specifies for the customer profile summary to be generated by the LLM. (¶ 0028, 0038: Knudson discloses the data processing module 412 gives the account level data to the generate artificial models 426 that produce intelligent summaries of a customer’s account at any given time.)
The combination of Geppert, Knudson, and Gardner references do not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, Manchandra discloses:
specifies a maximum length (¶ 0109-0110: discloses the input GUI elements may correspond to a transcript 1001 and a maximum length 1002. A user may enter a transcript as a string and may provide the maximum length)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Geppert, Knudson, and Gardner to include to ability for specifies a maximum length, as disclosed by Manchandra to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Manchandra, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide an improved user experience when enterprise wants to interact with customer for reasons such as offering assistance with respect to products and services. (¶ 0026, 0030)
With respect to claims 4 and 12, the combination of Geppert, Knudson, Gardner, and Manchandra discloses the computer-implemented method and system,
wherein the maximum length is defined in terms of a number of words, characters, or sentences. (¶ 0110: Manchandra discloses provide the maximum length 1002 as an integer. For example, the maximum length of “1024”)
With respect to claims 5, 7, 13, 15, the combination of Geppert, Knudson, Gardner does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method and system,
However, Manchandra discloses:
incorporating into the context data for the prompt a text-based transcript of a prior communication session with the customer (¶ 0032), wherein the prior communication session was with a first agent/automated chatbot (¶ 0052, 0054: discloses textual data of a conversation between the first agent and a customer.) 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. (¶ 0042, 0062: discloses an AI-based LLM may be trained using a training dataset. The training dataset may include transcripts of historical conversations stored in the database.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system and methods the combination of Geppert, Knudson, and Gardner to include 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 the content of the prior communication session in addition to the customer profile data, as disclosed by Manchandra to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Manchandra, the motivation for the combination would have been for improving contact satisfaction by providing appropriate support or assistance for the targeted contact. (¶ 0026)
With respect to claims 6 and 14, the combination of Geppert, Knudson, Gardner, and Manchandra discloses the computer-implemented method and system,
wherein the text-based transcript includes a description of a specific customer need or inquiry expressed during the prior communication session (¶ 0032: Manchandra disclose the textual data may be in a form of a transcript of the conversation between agent(s) and customer(s)), and the LLM utilizes this description to prioritize relevant aspects of the customer profile data in the generation of the customer profile summary.(¶ 0042 – See Manchandra)
12. Claim(s) 2, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert in view of Knudson in view of Gardner in further view of Sulur (US 2015/0199645 A1).
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, the combination of Geppert, Knudson, Gardner does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method, system, and machine-readable medium,
However, Sulur discloses:
wherein retrieving the customer profile data (¶ 0005, 0017-0018: discloses a centralized customer repository for customers by consolidating record attributes of customer records as consolidated attributes of a customer profile.) further comprises:
utilizing a profile connector (¶ 0048, 0063: discloses collection module 404) to map the customer identifier to a system-generated unique identifier (ID) for the customer (¶ 0063: discloses collection module 404 may map one or more criterion from request 190 to a customer identifier, such as a unique party identifier assigned by an enterprise. The method may generate a unique party identifier that may refer to a unique identifier assigned by the financial institution to identify the customer data and accounts that are to be included in customer profile.),
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 (¶ 0045, 0063: discloses the method determines one or more customer identifiers indicated in request 190. The method may select the name, account number, party identifier from the request as the customer identifier.); 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 (¶ 0063-0069: discloses the collection module 44 may process the customer data to make the customer data useable by downstream processes.),
wherein the profile connector (¶ 0048, 0063: discloses collection module 404) operates to facilitate translation between the customer identifier and the system-generated unique ID (¶ 0063: discloses collection module 404 may map one or more criterion from request 190 to a customer identifier, such as a unique party identifier assigned by an enterprise. The method may generate a unique party identifier that may refer to a unique identifier assigned by the financial institution to identify the customer data and accounts that are to be included in customer profile.) to ensure accurate retrieval of the customer profile data. (¶ 0063-0065: discloses collection module 404 facilitates retrieval of customer data associated with customer records from one or more sources.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Geppert, Knudson, and Gardner to include the steps performed by the collection module, as disclosed by Sulur to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Sulur, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide technical advantages for reconciling a large number of customer records into a centralized repository for customers and enriching and consolidating additional customer data into the customer profile. (¶ 0003-0005)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Examiner characterized the claims as directed to the abstract idea of "receiving/processing an incoming customer request and providing a customer profile summary with an invitation to a customer service agent for handling the request," allegedly falling within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Applicant respectfully disagrees. As a threshold matter, the Examiner's characterization of the abstract idea omits the specific data-processing architecture now recited in the amended claims. The claims do not merely recite "providing a customer profile summary."
“They recite: (1) retrieving customer profile data and event data relating to the customer's interactions across one or more communication channels; (2) applying, via a pre-processing service, a set of predefined business rules to filter the combined customer profile data and event data to identify a relevant subset; (3) formatting that subset for inclusion as context data in an LLM prompt; and (4) generating a customer profile summary from the formatted subset.”
“These are not mental steps. No human could mentally apply algorithmic business rules to filter voluminous multi-source customer data and format the result for machine consumption within the real-time latency constraints of a live incoming communication. The claims thus recite operations that are fundamentally technological in character, not activities that fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes" groupings.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is important for Applicant to note that claims can recite a mental process even if the claims are being performed by a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). The specific type of information or data being pre-processed and formatted is part of the abstract idea itself and cannot be used to alter the analysis. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 1 can be directed to an abstract idea even if the claims require operations that a human could not perform as quickly as a computer.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations that recite “retrieving”, “applying”, “formatting”, and “generating” are performing data processing steps for preparing a customer profile summary for an agent while engaging with a customer which is subject matter that may be reasonably characterized as falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Also, the MPEP guidance further supports the Examiner’s position for the rejection under Prong One as section also discusses a claim for “collecting information, analyzing it, and providing certain results from the collection and analysis” corresponds to mental processes where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Amended Claims Integrate Any Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application Under Step 2A, Prong Two Even assuming arguendo that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as touching upon an abstract idea, the claims as amended plainly integrate any such idea into a practical application by reciting a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem identified in the specification.”
“The Technical Problem. The specification explicitly identifies the technical problem at paragraph [0023]: "[I]dentifying appropriate real-time data from expansive customer profiles is difficult, as it generally requires very fast intelligent filtering, grouping, and/or division." Customer profiles aggregate extensive behavioral, transactional, and contextual data from multiple sources into unified profiles that may span years of interactions across numerous touchpoints. Paragraph [0024] explains that the volume and variety of such data make it technically challenging to identify and surface only the data relevant to a particular incoming communication in real time.
“The Technical Solution. The amended claims recite a specific data-processing architecture that solves this identified technical problem. Rather than passing the entirety of an aggregated customer profile to an LLM-which could encompass years of fine-grained behavioral, transactional, and contextual data from multiple sources-the claimed system: (a) retrieves both customer profile data and event data relating to the customer's current and past interactions across one or more communication channels (multi-source data acquisition); (b) applies, via a pre-processing service, predefined business rules to filter the combined customer profile data and event data and identify only the subset relevant to the current incoming communication request (rule-based intelligent filtering); and (c) formats the identified subset for inclusion as context data in the LLM prompt, ensuring that the prompt is optimally structured for processing (data formatting for machine consumption).”
“This is the mechanism by which the system addresses the "very fast intelligent filtering, grouping, and/or division" problem that the specification identifies. The combination of multi-source data acquisition with rule-based pre-processing and formatting is not a generic "apply it" implementation of an abstract concept on a computer. It is a particular arrangement of specific technical components-including a pre-processing service operating in a defined pipeline between data retrieval and LLM prompt construction-that produces a concrete improvement in the functioning of the digital engagement platform's data pipeline.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the Applicant’s response and Specification emphasize that the key distinguishing feature of the claims is the ability to pre-process the customer’s data using business rules to format a prompt for processing by an LLM. The features and the sequence of steps being relied upon by Applicant narrow how the abstract idea is performed and cannot be used to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a) At best, the claims describe the automation of the generating and preparing a customer profile summary through the use of generic computer functions. The additional elements that recite “a pre-processing service” and “LLM” in the claim are being used in their normal or ordinary capacity to aid in performing the judicial exception. Relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims reciting specific technical solutions to identified technical problems are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court found claims patent-eligible where they were directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality-namely, a self- referential table that improved how data was stored and retrieved. Similarly, in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court held that claims reciting a specific manner of displaying information to solve a particular problem with prior art user interfaces were directed to a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The asserted claims do not recite a comparable technological improvement and are distinguishable from the claims found eligible in the Enfish and Core Wireless court decisions. Additionally, the response does not explain how the asserted claims parallel the factual patterns discussed in the cited court decision. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Here, the amended claims recite a specific data-processing pipeline that solves the specific computational problem of extracting relevant, real-time information from voluminous customer profiles and event data under the latency constraints of a live incoming communication. The specification identifies both the technical problem (paragraph [0023]) and the technical solution (paragraphs [0079], [0081], [0088], [0113]). The claims are not directed to the abstract concept of "providing a customer profile summary" any more than the claims in Enfish were directed to the abstract concept of "storing data." They are directed to a specific technical architecture for doing so.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The specificity of the presently recited techniques as described does not automatically indicate a technological solution to a technological problem. At best the claim recites an abstract idea for generating and providing a customer profile summary and the uses off the shelf technology to implement the abstract idea. The passages from the Specification and the response describe the claimed invention in a results-oriented manner rather than providing a finding that the claims improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Examiner's reliance on Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) is inapposite. Trading Technologies involved claims directed to the graphical display of trading information-a user interface improvement with no underlying technical data processing innovation.”
“The present claims do not merely rearrange information on a display. They recite a multi-stage data-processing pipeline-retrieval of customer profile data and event data, rule- based filtering by a pre-processing service, and data formatting-that transforms raw, voluminous multi-source data into optimally structured LLM prompts. The improvement is in the data pipeline, not in the visual arrangement of information.
Intellectual Ventures is likewise distinguishable. There, the court found that the claims
merely required using a "software brain" to tailor information, with no technical detail as to how the tailoring was accomplished. Here, the claims specify precisely how the data is processed: retrieval of customer profile data and event data, application of predefined business rules by a pre-processing service for filtering, and formatting for LLM consumption. This level of specificity takes the claims well beyond the generic "software brain" at issue in Intellectual Ventures.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant arguments are not persuasive. Here, the Applicant argues the improvement is in how the data is processed or the data pipeline. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a) Thus the response provided by Applicant confirms if there are any improvements to be considered they recited within the abstract idea and not the generic computing equipment being used to aid in performing the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept Under Step 2B
Should the Examiner reach Step 2B, the amended claims recite an inventive concept for the same reasons they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The specific combination of (1) retrieving customer profile data and event data relating to the customer's interactions across one or more communication channels in response to an incoming communication request, (2) rule-based pre-processing that filters and formats the combined multi-source data, and (3) generation of an LLM prompt containing the formatted subset is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, either individually or in ordered combination.”
“The Examiner's prior analysis at Step 2B relied on the proposition that sequences of data reception, routing, analysis, and display are conventional when claimed at a high level of generality, citing Ultramercial, Inventor Holdings, and Two-Way Media. The amended claims are not claimed at a high level of generality. They recite specific technical components (a pre-processing service operating between data retrieval and LLM prompt construction) performing specific operations (rule-based filtering and format structuring) in a specific pipeline configuration. None of the cited cases involved claims reciting a comparable level of technical specificity in a data-processing pipeline.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. These conclusory allegations regarding the ordered combination of steps are not well known or conventional is insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. Just as a claim is not rendered patent eligible by stating an abstract idea and instructing "apply it on a computer," a claim is not rendered patent eligible merely because the abstract idea is applied using a pre-processing service or using a large language model (LLM). See TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 615. Indeed, the Specification teaches that pre-processing and large language models had been established by the time of its invention, [Fig. 1, ¶ 0016-0024, 0061], which confirms that the mere using a pre-processing service or using a large language model (LLM) is not inventive. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights