DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 and 10-13 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claims 8 and 9 are cancelled. This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. Applicant has amended previously cited allowable subject matter (Claim 9) into the independent claims.
Applicant has provided sufficient information to fulfill Examiner’s request for information under 37 CFR 1.105.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
As previously stated and further in light of the amendments, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are not directed towards abstract ideas. The claim as currently written still recites abstract ideas for the same reasons shown in the previous Office Action. In addition, the amended language further recites the abstract ideas. The additional elements presented in the claim language are still generic in nature, performing their generic functions as intended and do not recite significantly more. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed invention, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. Thus, the claim still recites the abstract ideas of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity due to the marketing or sales activities or behaviors taking place, Mental Processes due to the limitations recites concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper, as well as Mathematical Concepts due to the use of mathematical formulas/equations/calculations taking place in the claim language.
In addition, Examiner will note that limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use are not indicative of integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 10-12, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are directed to the abstract idea of calculating a score of an outbound-marketing interaction.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites (i) retrieving a transcription of the outbound- marketing interaction; (iii) constructing a prompt based on: (a) the identified product; (b) one or more features of the identified product; (c) the transcription; and (d) one or more questions, wherein each question is related to a section in one or more preconfigured- sections; (v) calculating the score of the outbound-marketing interaction based on the question-score of each question; and (vi) sending the score to one or more applications for follow-on actions based on the score, wherein the one or more applications and the follow-on action is prioritizing customer call-back via the outbound-dialer service and triggering outbound-interactions accordingly, wherein the score is a customer-interest score, and wherein the one or more preconfigured-sections are customer-preconfigured-sections, and each section is a customer-section, said customer- preconfigured-sections comprising at least one of: (i) awareness; (ii) interest: (iii) desire; (iv) action; and (v) sales-conversion, and wherein the calculating of the customer-interest score is according to formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
whereby: n is a number of the one or more customer-preconfigured-sections, customer_section_weight, is a weight that has been assigned to customer-section, and customer_section_score, is an average score of questions related to customer-section divided by maximum-score for customer-section.
These claim limitations fall within Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the commercial interactions taking place (marketing or sales activities/behaviors). In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the limitations, as well as Claim 11 fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical formulas and calculations used.
Furthermore, the recitation of an artificial intelligence large language model does not take the claim out of the abstract ideas listed.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-7 and 10-12 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a (ii) identifying a product that is being marketed in the outbound-marketing interaction by executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Large Language Model (LLM) with a check-product-prompt having the transcription embedded therein; (iv) executing the Al LLM with the constructed prompt to yield an answer and a question-score to each question of the one or more questions and an outbound dialer service. The (ii) identifying a product that is being marketed in the outbound-marketing interaction by executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Large Language Model (LLM) with a check-product-prompt having the transcription embedded therein; (iv) executing the Al LLM with the constructed prompt to yield an answer and a question-score to each question of the one or more questions and an outbound dialer service are merely generic computing functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, “(vi) sending the score to one or more applications for follow-on actions based on the score” limitation recites insignificant extra solution activity.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include (ii) identifying a product that is being marketed in the outbound-marketing interaction by executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Large Language Model (LLM) with a check-product-prompt having the transcription embedded therein; (iv) executing the Al LLM with the constructed prompt to yield an answer and a question-score to each question of the one or more questions, an outbound dialer service and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0020. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 13, it is directed to a system, however the claim is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of calculating a score of an outbound-marketing interaction.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 13, claim 13 recites (i) retrieve a transcription of the outbound- marketing interaction; (iii) construct a prompt based on: (a) the identified product; (b) one or more features of the identified product; (c) the transcription; and (d) one or more questions, wherein each question is related to a section in one or more preconfigured- sections; (v) calculate the score of the outbound-marketing interaction based on the question-score of each question; and (vi) send the score to one or more applications for follow-on actions based on the score, wherein the one or more applications and the follow-on action is prioritizing customer call-back via the outbound-dialer service and triggering outbound-interactions accordingly, wherein the score is a customer-interest score, and wherein the one or more preconfigured-sections are customer-preconfigured-sections, and each section is a customer-section, said customer- preconfigured-sections comprising at least one of: (i) awareness; (ii) interest; (iii) desire; (iv) action; and (v) sales-conversion, and wherein the calculating of the customer-interest score is according to formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
whereby: n is a number of the one or more customer-preconfigured-sections, customer_section_weight, is a weight that has been assigned to customer-section, and customer_section_score, is an average score of questions related to customer-section divided by maximum-score for customer-section.
These claim limitations fall within Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the commercial interactions taking place (marketing or sales activities/behaviors). In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. In addition, the limitations, as well as Claim 11 fall within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas due to the mathematical formulas and calculations used.
Furthermore, the recitation of an artificial intelligence large language model does not take the claim out of the abstract ideas listed.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of one or more processors, an interactions database, a memory, (ii) identify a product that is being marketed in the outbound-marketing interaction by executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Large Language Model (LLM) with a check-product-prompt having the transcription embedded therein; (iv) execute the Al LLM with the constructed prompt to yield an answer and a question-score to each question of the one or more questions and an outbound dialer service. The one or more processors, an interactions database, a memory, (ii) identify a product that is being marketed in the outbound-marketing interaction by executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Large Language Model (LLM) with a check-product-prompt having the transcription embedded therein; (iv) execute the Al LLM with the constructed prompt to yield an answer and a question-score to each question of the one or more questions and an outbound dialer service are merely generic computing functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more processors, an interactions database, a memory, (ii) identify a product that is being marketed in the outbound-marketing interaction by executing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Large Language Model (LLM) with a check-product-prompt having the transcription embedded therein; (iv) execute the Al LLM with the constructed prompt to yield an answer, a question-score to each question of the one or more questions and an outbound dialer service and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0020. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claim 13 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625