DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/481,138 (10/04/23) filed on 12/02/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 15 and 17 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Re Claims 1 - 15 and 17 - 21: Alice 101
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1 - 15 and 17 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 8, is/are directed to a process (i.e., a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention involves receiving contextual data; executing a teleconference;
displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time; and
outputting the modified graph during the teleconference, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; outputting the modified graph during the teleconference); commercial or legal interactions (displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; outputting the modified graph during the teleconference); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, executing, displaying, generating, integrating, outputting).
The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to receiving contextual data; executing a teleconference; displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time; and outputting the modified graph during the teleconference.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually receiving contextual data; executing a teleconference; displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time; and outputting the modified graph during the teleconference. NOTE: (a) The claim(s) silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts. (b) Although a “source device” (i.e., “source device”; “source device using the software application”; “user interface of the software application”) is referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of the “source device” and the “source device” does not perform the positively recited steps or acts. The “source device” merely interacts with the entity (unknown, unclaimed) that performs the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention.
The mere nominal recitation of technology does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea). Is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “receiving” step being “from a source device when the source device logs into a software application”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “executing a teleconference” step being “with the source device using the software application”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of in the “displaying” step the group of data objects are “associated with the source device” and the “displaying” is “on a user interface of the software application”. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of the “outputting” step being “on the user interface of the software application”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., performing the generic functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “executing”, “generating”, “integrating” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “displaying ….. on a user interface”, “outputting ….. on the user interface”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering contextual data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The language is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 10/04/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Radosta, US Pub. No. 2024/0386495; Carter, US Pub. No. 2024/0087029; Woiwood, US Pub. No. 2024/0362716; Boyd, 12,094,005; Lucia, SR, US Pub. No. 2012/0136804; and Zhang, US Pub. No. 2017/0213288 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “executing”, “generating”, “integrating” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “displaying ….. on a user interface”, “outputting ….. on the user interface”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “executing”, “generating”, “integrating” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “displaying ….. on a user interface”, “outputting ….. on the user interface”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9 - 14 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent apparatus claim 1 and independent computer-readable storage medium claim 15 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “memory”, “processor”) described in independent apparatus claim 1 and the components (e.g., “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”) described in independent computer-readable storage medium claim 15, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (apparatus; computer-readable storage medium) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 - 7 and 17 - 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Re Claims 15 and 17 - 21: Signal Claims
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to a computer-readable storage medium that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Subject Matter Eligible of Computer Readable Medium-January 26, 2010).
Giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “computer-readable storage medium” is interpreted as a signal which is non-statutory subject matter.
See also, MPEP §2106.03
Response to Arguments
101
Alice
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; outputting the modified graph during the teleconference.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time during the teleconference; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; outputting the modified graph during the teleconference. Graphing and displaying attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time involves “legal obligations”, “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (receiving, executing, displaying, generating, integrating, outputting, etc.).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects ….. over a previous period of time ….. during the teleconference”; “….. identify an additional object of interest;
generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph ….. to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time; and outputting the modified graph ….. during the teleconference”.) which are examples of mental processes.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1 – 7, 15 and 17 - 21 suggest the steps or acts occur on a computer (i.e., “apparatus” comprising “a memory” and “processor” in apparatus claims 1 - 7; “computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” in computer-readable storage medium claims 15 and 17 - 21) and method claims 8 - 14 are silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts, nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides (a) improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field and provides a “technological solution to a technological problem” (e.g., (i) “the claimed invention provides a concrete improvement to the operation of teleconferencing software by enabling context-driven, AI-enhanced graphical updates directly on the user interface of the teleconference software”. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25; (ii) “a purposeful arrangement of components that improves the way users interact with teleconferencing platforms”. See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25; and “Such improvements represent a technological advancement in teleconferencing software rather than an abstract idea applied on generic hardware”. See pg. 10 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25.); and (b) applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (e.g., (i) “Furthermore, the claims recite a particular machine-based implementation that requires a memory and processor configured to perform specific ordered operations. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25.). Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
Graphing and displaying attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing (e.g., “usability and effectiveness of the software application”. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25.) is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Furthermore, although applicant’s arguments appear focused on alleged “improvements” in a “teleconference” environment. These alleged “improvements” are not described in applicant’s specification as filed 10/04/23 with respect to “teleconference” environments in particular. A “teleconference”, like a “call” or “meeting” is just an example environment where it may be used. See at least para. [0001] [0142] [0149] of applicant’s specification as filed 10/04/23. Applicant is basically arguing generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, several factors are relevant such as the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method; and whether it’s involvement is extra-solution activity or a field of use.
First, when looking at the particularity or generality of a machine or apparatus the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is important. In the instant case, the steps or acts are performed by a general purpose computer (i.e., “apparatus” comprising “a memory” and “processor” in apparatus claims 1 - 7; “computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” in computer-readable storage medium claims 15 and 17 - 21; NOTE: Method claims 8 - 14 are silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts.). This does not qualify as a particular machine. This rationale also applies to any suggestion that there is a particular machine because the machine is programmed (i.e., “Furthermore, the claims recite a particular machine-based implementation that requires a memory and processor configured to perform specific ordered operations.” See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25.).
Second, although the claim invention recites computers or other machinery (i.e., “apparatus” comprising “a memory” and “processor” in apparatus claims 1 - 7; “computer-readable storage medium” and “processor” in computer-readable storage medium claims 15 and 17 - 21; NOTE: Method claims 8 - 14 are silent regarding who or what is performing the positively recited steps or acts.), the computers or other machinery are used “merely as a tool to perform an existing process. This does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Third, the “apparatus” does not impose meaningful limitations on the claim. The “apparatus” is limited to (a) “data gathering” (e.g., “receiving contextual data from a source device when the source device logs into a software application”;). In other words, the gathering of data (e.g., indicative of a first proposed transaction and a second proposed transaction).; and (b) “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” (e.g., “executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest;
generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time;”). Thus, the associated limitations cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.
See also, MPEP §2106.05(b).
The role of the device (NOTE: With respect to at least claims 8 - 14, a device may not be required) is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “receiving contextual data from a source device when the source device logs into a software application;”).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “receiving contextual data from a source device when the source device logs into a software application;”); analyzing it (e.g., “executing a teleconference with the source device using the software application”; “executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time”;); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g., “displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects associated with the source device over a previous period of time on a user interface of the software application during the teleconference”; “outputting the modified graph on the user interface of the software application during the teleconference.”) merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
In response to applicant's arguments, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “improves teleconference functionality by combining contextual data such as a cookies file pulled from a source device, live communication, and artificial intelligence outputs in a unified visual presentation during an active session”. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/26) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). For example, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 don’t require that the “contextual data” pertains to “cookies file pulled from a source device, live communication”, etc.. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (a) “In addition, the claimed system executes an AI model in real time (during the teleconference) on the objects already associated with the source device and contextual data pulled from the source device, to identify a new object of interest.”. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/26.; and (b) “This combination of executing the AI model on contextual data, integrating graphs in real time, and outputting the modified visualization during the session is not a generic use of computers but instead a purposeful arrangement of components that improves the way users interact with teleconferencing platforms.” See pg. 9 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/26.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). For example, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 don’t have any “real time” performance requirements. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(3)Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 10/04/23 does not provide any indication there is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Radosta, US Pub. No. 2024/0386495; Carter, US Pub. No. 2024/0087029; Woiwood, US Pub. No. 2024/0362716; Boyd, 12,094,005; Lucia, SR, US Pub. No. 2012/0136804; and Zhang, US Pub. No. 2017/0213288 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “executing”, “generating”, “integrating” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “displaying ….. on a user interface”, “outputting ….. on the user interface”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “receiving”, etc. step(s) as claimed); (b) data processing (e.g., “executing”, “generating”, “integrating” etc. step(s) as claimed); and (c) data display (e.g., “displaying ….. on a user interface”, “outputting ….. on the user interface”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018) (displaying and disseminating financial information) and Intellectual Ventures 1 LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized web pages) indicate displaying information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 9 - 14 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent apparatus claim 1 and independent computer-readable storage medium claim 15 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The components (e.g., “memory”, “processor”) described in independent apparatus claim 1 and the components (e.g., “computer-readable storage medium”, “processor”) described in independent computer-readable storage medium claim 15, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product (apparatus; computer-readable storage medium) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 - 7 and 17 - 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
(4) Applicant’s argue consideration of claims as “a whole”.
All elements of applicant’s claimed invention were considered and applicant’s claimed invention has been considered as a whole. In particular, the elements directed to the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) were considered under PRONG 1. See at least pgs. 4 - 6 of the Office action above. The combination of additional elements were considered under PRONG 2. See at least pg. 6 of the Office action above.
(5)Applicant argues preemption or that there is not a monopoly on the alleged ‘judicial exception’.
With regard to preemption, the issue comes down to whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea and does it fail the Mayo/Alice step one and step two analysis.
In the instant case, the claims are directed to the concept of receiving contextual data from a source device when the source device logs into a software application;
executing a teleconference with the source device using the software application;
displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects associated with the source device over a previous period of time on a user interface of the software application during the teleconference; executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest;
generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time; and outputting the modified graph on the user interface of the software application during the teleconference which is similar to other (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes) found to be abstract ideas.
The fact that the claims do not preempt all ways of receiving contextual data from a source device when the source device logs into a software application;
executing a teleconference with the source device using the software application;
displaying a graph that visually depicts attributes of a group of objects associated with the source device over a previous period of time on a user interface of the software application during the teleconference; executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the group of objects and the contextual data to identify an additional object of interest; generating an additional graph that visually depicts corresponding attributes of the additional object over the previous period of time; integrating the additional graph into the graph using the AI model to generate a modified graph that combines the attributes and the corresponding attributes over the previous period of time; and outputting the modified graph on the user interface of the software application during the teleconference in a particular setting does not make them any less abstract. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345.
Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
(6)Applicant argues machine learning or artificial intelligence.
The court in Recentive Analytics concluded, “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied are patent ineligible under § 101.” See pg. 18 of Recentive Analytics. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. United States Cour of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2023-2437.
(7) Applicant argues Ex Parte Desjardins
Desjardins is particularly relevant to evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence. Desjardins suggests eligibility determinations should turn on whether “the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea”. (See Desjardins, pg. 8). The alleged “improvements” applicant argues are directed to the benefits of automation itself.
Graphing and displaying attributes of a group of objects over a previous period of time is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing (e.g., “usability and effectiveness of the software application”. See pg. 8 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 12/02/25.) is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
Furthermore, although applicant’s arguments appear focused on alleged “improvements” in a “teleconference” environment. These alleged “improvements” are not described in applicant’s specification as filed 10/04/23 with respect to “teleconference” environments in particular. A “teleconference”, like a “call” or “meeting” is just an example environment where it may be used. See at least para. [0001] [0142] [0149] of applicant’s specification as filed 10/04/23.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
Signal Claims
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
No amendments and/ or arguments have been provided for which a response may be provided
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and relates to using an AI model to generate a modified graph and/ or outputting the modified graph during a teleconference.
Bartram SM, Branke J, Motahari M. Artificial intelligence in asset management. CFA Institute Research Foundation; 2020 Aug 28.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695