DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final office action upon examination of application number 18/496434.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/4/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 31, 41, and 49 have been amended.
Claim 54 is new.
Claims 31-36, 39-44, 47-49, and 51-54 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 31-36, 39-44, 47-49, and 51-54 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.
(Step 1) Claims 31-36, 39-40, and 51-54 are directed to a system comprising one or more processors; thus the system comprises a device or set of devices, and therefore, is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 41-44 and 47-48 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 49 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and this a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to model at risk clients and identifying retention actions, which is described by claim limitations reciting:
… identify potential deactivation clients, … with training data created from profile information and service information related to at least a plurality of former clients;
…generate one or more first outputs that represent a semantic representation of information associated with a plurality of current clients, the one or more outputs generated by providing one or more sets of data …;
classify, using the one or more first outputs…, a current client of the plurality of current clients as a potential deactivation client based on a comparison of the semantic representation of the information associated with the plurality of current clients and one or more semantic representations generated … to represent information associated with the plurality of former clients;
determine…attributes that contribute towards classification of the current client as the potential deactivation client based on one or more correlations between at least a portion of the semantic representation that describes the current client and at least a portion of the one or more semantic representations that describe one or more former clients of the plurality of former clients;
model, using the attributes and a predicted service termination date, one or more interactions associated with at least one former client of the plurality of former clients;
select a retention action from a plurality of retention actions to execute during an interaction with the potential deactivation client, the retention action selected based on the model of the one or more interactions having identified at least one variance between the potential deactivation client and the one or more former clients;
detect an initiation of the interaction by … the potential deactivation client; and
execute … responsive to detection of the initiation of the interaction by… the potential deactivation client, the retention action to reduce a likelihood of deactivation by the potential deactivation client.
The identified limitations in the claims describing the modeling at risk clients and identifying retention actions (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practice and business relations, or alternatively, the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since the identified steps can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Dependent claims 32, 34, 42, and 53 recite limitations that further describe/narrow the abstract idea (i.e., modeling at risk clients and identifying retention actions); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements such as the one or more processors coupled with memory and computing device associated with the potential deactivation client in claim 31; the one or more processors coupled with memory and computing device associated with the potential deactivation client in claim 41; and the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor executable instructions and computing device associated with the potential deactivation client in claim 49, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since these elements are only broadly applied to the abstract ideas at a high level of generality; thus, none of recited hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, in this case, implementation via a processor/computer.
Additional elements such as access a neural network trained to identify…; cause the neural network to generate…providing one or more sets of data to one or more first nodes of the neural network; classify, using the one or more outputs of the neural network…representations generated by the neural network; and determine, using the neural network… do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment (neural networks).
Additional elements reciting executing, by the one or more processors, via communication over a network with the computing device that is remote from the one or more processors, responsive to detection of initiation of the interaction by the computing device associated with the potential deactivation client, the retention action… do not provide an improvement to the computer or technology; these additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technology.
Similarly, additional elements in claims 33, 35, 36, 40, 43, 44, 48, and 52 related to a neural network and second nodes of the neural network do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements in claims 38, 39, 46, and 47, related to detecting an interaction between a service representative device and a client device… do not improve the computer or technology and only add a field of use to the abstract idea. Additional elements in claim 51 reciting transmit, via a communication network, one or more signals to cause a second computing device to digitally present… do not provide an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data transmission/display). Additional elements in claim 54 reciting train, using at least a portion of the training data, the neural network… do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Spec. paragraph 89). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additional elements such as access a neural network trained to identify…; cause the neural network to generate…providing one or more sets of data to one or more first nodes of the neural network; classify, using the one or more outputs of the neural network…representations generated by the neural network; and determine, using the neural network… do not yield an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements reciting executing, by the one or more processors, via communication over a network with the computing device that is remote from the one or more processors, responsive to detection of initiation of the interaction by the computing device associated with the potential deactivation client, the retention action… do not provide an improvement to the computer or technology; these additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technology. Additional elements in claims 33, 35, 36, 40, 43, 44, 48, and 52 related to a neural network do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. Additional elements in claims 38, 39, 46, and 47, related to detecting an interaction between a service representative device and a client device… do not improve the computer or technology and only add a field of use to the abstract idea. Additional elements in claim 51 reciting transmit, via a communication network, one or more signals to cause a second computing device to digitally present… do not provide an improvement and only add insignificant extra-solution activities (data transmission/display). With respect to data transmission limitations, the courts have recognized the use of computers to receive and transmit data as a well-understood, routine, and conventional, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). With respect to data display limitations, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Additional elements in claim 54 reciting train, using at least a portion of the training data, the neural network… do not provide an improvement and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). The present claims describing the modeling of at risk clients and identifying retention action is related to mitigating risks and is a concept related to commerce; therefore, Examiner maintains the identified abstract idea falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a Mental Process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Examiner maintains that the identified limitations in the claims describing the modeling at risk clients and identifying retention actions (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since the identified steps can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges the asserted improvement in paragraph 65 of the Specification. However, an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. The use of former clients to model client churn at best provides an improvement to a business process but does not improve the performance of the computer itself or the technology.
Additional elements such as access a neural network trained to identify…; cause the neural network to generate…providing one or more sets of data to one or more first nodes of the neural network; classify, using the one or more outputs of the neural network…representations generated by the neural network; and determine, using the neural network… do not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they yield improvements to a technical field or technology; these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment (neural networks). \
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625