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 . This office action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filed November 12, 2025 in which claims 1-2, 5-10 and 12-21 are amended. Claim 4 was previously cancelled. Thus, claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 9 and 17.
The claims 1-3, 5-8 and 21 are directed to an apparatus, claims 9-16 are directed to a method and claims 17-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium which are one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites : a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: execute a live teleconference between a source device and another device via a software application; display a graph of attributes associated with the source device on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the software application, capture audio from a conversation during the live teleconference through the software application, determine an upcoming event based on execution of an artificial intelligence (Al) model on the audio.
execute the AI model on data of the attributes and an identifier of the upcoming event to generate an instruction, and update the GUI of the software application to display the generated instruction during the live teleconference. These limitations (with the exception of italicized portions), when considered collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that covers Mental Processes as these limitations relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and use of a pen and paper). The claim also recites a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as Mental Processes. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the concepts that can be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The specification describes the additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface, to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, [0070]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Similar arguments can he extended to other independent claims 9 and 17 and hence the claims 9 and 17 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage medium that amounts to generic computer implementation.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-16 and 18-21 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only narrow the abstract idea further and thus correspond to “Mental Processes” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-16 and 18-21 do not recite any new additional elements that are not present in independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
Viewing the claim limitations as a combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as a combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 are ineligible.
Claim 17 analysis :
Examiner further notes that the claim 17 is directed to a computer readable medium which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. The claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Examiner recommends the Applicant to amend the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Appropriate correction is requested.
No Prior Art Rejections
4. Based on the prior art search results, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter of claims 1-3 and 5-21. While some individual features of claims 1-3 and 5-21 may be shown in the prior art of record, no known reference, alone or in combination, would provide the invention of claims 1-3 and 5-21. The prior art most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention are :
1) Cummings (US 11,443,380 B2) – This invention relates to providing and recording context-specific advice in the form of a view of a hierarchical portfolio. As disclosed, the context-specific advice may be context-specific financial advice, the view may be an artificial intelligence view, and the hierarchical portfolio may be a hierarchical portfolio of assets. As further disclosed, the context-specific financial advice may include restructuring, allocation, positioning, or consolidation advice; the artificial intelligence view may include artificial intelligence suggestions generated based on the outputs of a machine learning model, such as a deep neural network model; and the hierarchical portfolio of assets may include stock, bond, cash, or alternative assets.
2) Martin (US 2009/0276368 A1) - This invention relates to supporting personal financial management by recommending financial products and services responsive to a user's particular financial health or situation based on explicit and implicit user data and feedback. The systems and methods automatically pull together data from various financial institutions, and provide an updated, accurate view of a user's finances.
3) Kumari (US 10,475,125 B1) – The invention relates to a method for identifying a life event affecting a user. The method includes obtaining a classification model, where the classification model models how financial data of a user relates to life events. Also, the method includes gathering the financial data of the user. The financial data of the user matches at least a subset of the classification model. In addition, the method includes identifying a life event affecting the user by applying the classification model to the financial data of the user. The method includes customizing a user interface of an application that is utilized by the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
5. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 1 (pages 7-8), Applicant argues that, “claims do not fall into any of the enumerated groupings and therefore cannot be abstract.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained in the 101 analysis above, the steps of the claim, when collectively as an ordered combination, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mental Processes as these limitations relate to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and use of a pen and paper). For instance, a human could listen to a conversation, and extract from the conversation, “data of attributes and an identifier of an upcoming event to generate an instruction”. The claim also recites a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface which do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. That is, other than, a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as Mental Processes. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the concepts that can be performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
6. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2A, Prong 2 (pages 8-10), Applicant argues that, “the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to point out that according to 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (2019 PEG), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
• Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -see MPEP 2106.05(c)
• 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used however a specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
All the features in the Applicant’s claims can at best be considered an improvement in the abstract idea. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. The AI model is claimed at a high level of generality to the point of being merely a label for a model. The technical limitations could be viewed as generally linking the abstract mental process of identifying an event from the contents of a conversation to the particular technological environment of streaming audio. The claims only recite the solution and not how a solution is accomplished. Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)(1)). The specification describes the additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, [0070]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface, are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
7. Applicant further states that (pages 9-10), “just as in the case of Ex parte Desjardins, the Al model performs a first task of identifying an upcoming event based on audio from a live teleconference, and optimizes performance of a second task of generating an instruction based on the upcoming event which is then output during the live teleconference.”
The Examiner does not see the parallel between the claims of the instant case and the claims in Desjardins. The invention in Desjardins improved the operation of the machine learning model. Hence, when considered as a whole, independent claim 1 integrated an abstract idea into a practical application. In Desjardins, “when evaluating the claim as a whole, we discern at least the following limitation of independent claim 1 that reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." We are persuaded that constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation.” On the other hand, the focus of the invention in the instant claims is not on improving machine learning model, but simply using AI as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Hence, Desjardins is not applicable.
8. With respect to the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 with regards to Step 2B, (page 10), Applicant states that, “the ordered combination of elements in the independent claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
One of the guidelines issued by the Office to determine if the claims recite additional elements which are not well understood, routine or conventional and hence, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, is the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter).
According to the Berkheimer memo,
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The claim simply applies the abstract idea using generic computer elements as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements in the claim are a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface. As per the rejection above, the specification describes the additional elements of a memory, a software application, a source device, a processor, an artificial intelligence (AI) model and a graphical user interface to be generic computer elements (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3A, [0070]). Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. There is no indication in Applicants’ claims that any specialized hardware or other inventive computer components are required. The fact that a general purpose computing system, suitably programmed, may be used to perform the claimed method and the fact that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but merely call for performance of the claimed functions “on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence, the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those discussed in the rejection, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Examiner Request
9. The Applicant is request to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVIN SHAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-2981. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3694
January 06, 2026
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694