DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 12/08/2025. Claims 1, 9, and 17 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 .
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 1-20 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). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Claim 17 recites “a machine-readable storage medium”. The specification is silent regarding the medium which could include a signal used to provide machine instructions i.e. machine-readable signal. A signal does not fall within one of the enumerated statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). It is suggested to recite "non-transitory machine-readable storage medium" to remove the rejection.
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 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: querying…to retrieve customer profile data associated with the customer identifier;”, “generating a prompt for use as input, the prompt including at least an instruction and 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/processing an incoming customer request and providing a customer profile summary with an invitation to a customer service agent for handling the request 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”, “querying”, “storing” manage how a customer profile summary is processed and provided to a customer service agent pertain to commercial interactions, i.e., marketing/sales activities, business relations, typically performed by contact/call centers that monitor and facilitate assisting customers following requests for service. Also, the limitation of “generate” in the claim recites mental processes for collecting and comparing known information about the customer which are acts 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”, “a customer data platform (CDP)”, “to 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”, “a 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.
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 customer data platform (CDP)”, “to a large language model (LLM)”, “the LLM”, “from the LLM”, “via a user interface of an agent dashboard”, “a system”, “one or more processors;”, “a memory storage device storing instructions thereon”, “a 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, 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. Here, the limitations have been re-evaluated to determine whether they 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 querying the CDP 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 the CDP 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 customer data from the CDP.” 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 the 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 the 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’s 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 querying the customer data platform (CDP) to retrieve 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 further view of Knudson (US 2024/0412048 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 20, Geppert discloses
a computer-implemented method, system, and 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: querying a customer data platform (CDP) to retrieve customer profile data associated with the customer identifier (¶ 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.), the prompt including at least an instruction and 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)
With respect to claims 8 and 16, the combination of Geppert and Knudson 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’s 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 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 querying the customer data platform (CDP) to retrieve 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 querying the customer data platform (CDP) to retrieve 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 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 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 and Knudson references does 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 and Knudson, 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, 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 and Knudson 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 the 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 and Knudson, 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, 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 further view of Sulur (US 2015/0199645 A1).
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, the combination of Geppert and Knudson does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method, system, and machine-readable medium,
However, Sulur discloses:
wherein querying the CDP (¶ 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 the CDP 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 customer data from the CDP. (¶ 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 and Knudson, to include the steps for querying the CDP, 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 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Examiner's rejection under Step 2A, Prong One is deficient and fails to establish a prima facie case that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The analysis lacks the specificity and precision required under current USPTO guidance. The Examiner broadly states that the claims "encompass 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)."
However, the Examiner fails to identify which specific claim language allegedly corresponds to "commercial interaction" versus which specific language allegedly represents "mental processes." This generalized approach falls short of the detailed analysis required to establish a prima facie rejection. The Examiner must identify the precise claim elements that allegedly fall within each category of abstract ideas. Without this element-by-element analysis, Applicant cannot properly respond to the rejection, and the rejection lacks the foundation necessary for a proper 101 analysis.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the two-part analysis. The previous rejection on pgs. 4-5 identified the limitations that describe activities for generating a customer profile summary for an agent and explained why the limitations fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. In order to meet the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132, the Examiner is required to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner. Id. see also Chester V. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("Section 132 is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection."). In the last Office Action, the Examiner did precisely what section 132 requires and sufficiently articulated the basis for the rejection and thus established a prima facie case of patent ineligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Furthermore, the Examiner lists "observations, evaluations, opinions, judgment" as mental processes but fails to specify which claim language allegedly represents each of these distinct concepts. The Examiner appears to invoke all four subcategories without the required specificity as to what language in the claim allegedly constitutes an "observation" versus an "evaluation" versus an "opinion" versus a "judgment." This shotgun approach to abstract idea identification does not satisfy the requirement for a detailed analysis at the claim element level. The MPEP requires examiners to perform a thorough analysis that specifically correlates claim language to abstract idea categories, with actual analysis and sufficiently descriptive and detailed explanation, which has not been done here.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong One. The Applicant is merely attempting to mischaracterize the previous rejection but does not effectively challenge the abstract idea identified by the Examiner. As previously explained in the last Office Action the series of steps that were identified carry out mental processes for collecting and comparing known information about the customer to generate a customer profile summary, where the data processing steps are performed at a high-level of generality and correspond to acts that may be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Even assuming arguendo that the claims involve subject matter that could be characterized as abstract, the claims as a whole clearly recite an improvement to technology and integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
As described in the specification, integrating customer data from a CDP for use with a digital engagement service presents unique technical challenges due to "the large volume and variety of customer profile data that is generated using a CDP." The specification explains that customer service representatives need "immediate access to the most relevant snippets of customer data during live engagements," but "[i]dentifying appropriate real-time data from expansive CDP customer profiles is difficult, as it generally requires very fast intelligent filtering, grouping, and/or division."
“The claimed invention addresses this technical problem through a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of digital engagement systems, such as contact center services. The amended claim recites an asynchronous processing architecture that specifically recites "initiating a process to generate a customer profile summary" that operates asynchronously while "placing the incoming communication request in a queue for assignment to an agent." This represents a technical improvement to system performance by preventing delays in call processing while customer profile summaries are generated.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. Applicant argues claim 1 improves a technology, but the alleged improvements focus on improving the business processes of generating a customer profile summary for a customer service agent, not improvements to technology. In other words, providing a customer service agent the most relevant snippets of customer data during live engagements as in claim 1, "does not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem." Trading Techs. Int 'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) Rather, claim 1 simply "includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" and "does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment." See MPEP § 2106.05(h). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claim requires specific technical components working in coordination: a customer data platform (CDP) for storing and retrieving customer profile data, a large language model (LLM) for intelligent data analysis and summarization, a data store for efficient storage and retrieval of generated summaries, and an agent dashboard user interface for presenting the invitation and summary. The claim specifically recites presenting "via a user interface of an agent dashboard of an available agent an invitation to accept the incoming communication request" where "the invitation [is] presented in conjunction with the customer profile summary." This specific technical configuration improves agent efficiency by providing contextual customer information precisely when needed for decision-making.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. The claimed invention generically requires “a computer-implemented method”, “a digital engagement service”, “a queue”, “a customer data platform (CDP)”, “to 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”. These components are described in the Specification at a high level of generality. (See Spec. ¶ 0016-0024, Fig. 1). The findings from the Specification evidence each of these additional elements recited in the claim operate in their normal or ordinary capacity to aid in performing the abstract idea.
Concerning the recitation of "a large language model (LLM)," it is well settled that "[r]equiring the use of a 'software' 'brain' 'tasked with tailoring information and providing it to the user' provides no additional limitation beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to the Internet, on a generic computer." Intellectual Ventures I LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, at 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 1370. In regards to providing contextual customer information to the agent precisely when needed for decision-making alleged by Applicant, the courts have previously indicated “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly”, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019) is insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claimed system provides concrete technical improvements to digital engagement platforms by solving data processing challenges through the use of LLMs to analyze and summarize large volumes of CDP customer profile data, which addresses the specific technical problem of processing vast amounts of customer data in real-time. The asynchronous processing prevents system delays that would otherwise occur if customer profile generation blocked call routing, thereby improving system performance. The coordinated presentation of invitations with relevant customer summaries enhances the user interface functionality of agent dashboard systems. These improvements are rooted in technology and represent enhancements to the technical field of digital engagement platforms, not merely the application of abstract ideas using generic computer components.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. Merely reciting the usage of LLMs in a claim and discussing the LLMs in a conclusory manner from the Specification by providing a general explanation without any technical details does not necessarily indicate a technical improvement, i.e., provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The focus of the remarks rely upon system improvements rooted in technology, however none of these alleged improvements by Applicant lead towards eligibility. At best, the Applicant is relying upon the particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., asynchronous processing, digital engagement platforms, which do not integrate the judicial exception. None of the alleged advantages improve the manner in which a computer functions or machine learning technology operates or improve any other technology. Here, preventing delays as alleged by Applicant may improve the business process recited by the abstract idea, however, there are no improvements to the computing system or machine learning technology being used to perform the abstract idea. The user interface of the agent dashboard operates in its normal capacity to provide information and an invitation for acceptance to an agent without improving the functioning of computers or any other technology. See Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception by providing a specific inventive concept that addresses well-recognized technical problems in digital engagement systems. The specification describes the technical challenge of integrating customer data from a CDP for use with a digital engagement service, noting that this integration is "technically challenging due to the large volume and variety of customer profile data that is generated using a CDP." The specification further explains that "[i]dentifying appropriate real-time data from expansive CDP customer profiles is difficult, as it generally requires very fast intelligent filtering, grouping, and/or division." The claimed invention addresses these technical challenges through a specific technological solution that goes far beyond routine data processing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2B. It is important for Applicant to note that the considerations under Step 2A Prong Two overlap with Step 2B, thus if an additional element was found ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two the result will remain the same under Step 2B. The passages from the Specification provide no technical details related to how the integrating customer data takes place or uses of real-time data from CDP, thus there are no technical improvements to computer functionality or any other technology recited in the claim. Thus, these conclusory allegations from Applicant’s reply above are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The inventive concept lies in the specific asynchronous processing architecture that coordinates multiple technical components to solve the technical problem of providing contextual customer insights without degrading system performance. The claims recite a specific sequence where the system both "placing the incoming communication request in a queue for assignment to an agent" while simultaneously "initiating a process to generate a customer profile summary," followed by the coordinated presentation of "an invitation to accept the incoming communication request" that is "presented in conjunction with the customer profile summary.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2B. The arguments are unpersuasive that the asserted claims include an inventive concept because they use “multiple technical components” and “a specific sequence of steps” is insufficient to render the clamed invention patent eligible. The Examiner does not find anything inventive in the ordered combination. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis (receiving/placing/initiating/querying/generating/receiving/processing) and storing is/are generic and otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. V. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC V. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. V. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “This asynchronous architecture prevents system bottlenecks that would otherwise occur if customer profile generation blocked call routing, representing a concrete technological improvement to digital engagement platform performance. The integration of an LLM specifically for analyzing and summarizing large volumes of CDP data in real-time, combined with the coordinated timing of presenting both invitations and summaries to agents, reflects a non-conventional arrangement of system components that improves the technical functioning of digital engagement platforms.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2B. In regards to preventing system bottlenecks using the asynchronous architecture, this feature is a desired result alleged by Applicant not reflected in the claim and therefore cannot be relied upon to provide a technological improvement or an inventive concept. The features related to analyzing and timing of the candidate profile summary to the agent merely narrow how the abstract idea may be performed but do not make the claim any less abstract. The courts have previously held "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
As for the additional elements recited such as LLM, CDP, agent dashboard, in the claim, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further agues “The examiner's reliance on generic characterizations of "receiving and transmitting data over a network" fails to account for the specific technical implementation recited in the claims. The claimed system does not merely receive and transmit data generically, but rather implements a specific technical solution involving the coordinated operation of CDPs, LLMs, asynchronous processing engines, and agent dashboard interfaces to solve the particular technical problem of real- time customer profile analysis in digital engagement environments. This specific combination and coordination of technical elements to address the identified technical challenges represents a genuine technological advancement that constitutes significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. For the foregoing reasons, the claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner has not established a prima facie case that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, failing to provide the required element-by-element analysis that specifically correlates claim language to abstract idea categories. Moreover, the claims as a whole clearly recite technical improvements that integrate any alleged abstract concepts into practical applications, specifically addressing the technical challenges of processing large volumes of customer data in real-time through asynchronous processing architectures and coordinated system components. The claimed invention represents a genuine technological advancement in digital engagement platforms that goes well beyond merely implementing abstract ideas on generic computer equipment. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claim invention remains ineligible under Step 2B. Here, the Applicant’s reply restates the discussion points regarding technical challenges that have already been addressed and considered ineligible above. The specificity of the presently recited techniques for generating and providing a customer profile summary to an agent dashboard does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. 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
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
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626