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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
The effective filing date of the present application is 01/18/2018.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 12/02/2025 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have rendered the previous claims objections as moot; therefore, prior objections to claims 8 and 15 are withdrawn.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the claims recite a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for determining and displaying relevant records (data) regarding a currently received customer relationship call. Therefore, the claims recite activities performed as a business relation, or a commercial interaction among a caller and the customer representative. A commercial interaction is considered to recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claim 14, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method of providing insights during a call, the method comprising:
determining an identifier at a customer relationship management (CRM) system for a caller associated with the call;
automatically determining records that are potentially relevant to the call and that are to potentially be included as part of an insights page of an application at a computing device by analyzing CRM information maintained at a CRM system, wherein automatically determining the records that are potentially relevant to the call comprises:
identifying relevant records at the CRM system that reference the identifier for the caller: and
predicting a subset of the relevant records most likely to be related to the call using artificial intelligence (AI), wherein the subset of the relevant records are ranked in priority order according to order of relevance; and
automatically populating the insights page at a user interface of the computing device, wherein the insights page comprises:
a summary of the CRM information extracted from at least one relevant record of the subset of the relevant records according to relative priority; and
at least one user interface element comprising a hyperlink that is selectable to display the at least one relevant record.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 14 recite only the following additional elements:
an insights page of an application at a computing device;
a CRM system;
using artificial intelligence (AI);
at least one user interface element comprising a hyperlink that is selectable to display the at least one relevant record;
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their disclosure, at Specification [0039-0040, 0105-0106], and, Figures 1 and 2, as filed. Applicant has added using artificial intelligence as an additional element. However, this element is defined by: “[v]arious types of artificial intelligence modules or engines can be used…”; and, “…artificial intelligence modules for predictive scoring, forecasting and recommendations can be used…”; [0075]. Thus, generally linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. This is descriptive of certain AI inventions that are ineligible. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence and MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not show integration into a practical application and the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
At Step 2B of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract ideas and link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As discussed above, the additional elements of (an insights page of an application at a computing device; a CRM system; at least one user interface element comprising a hyperlink; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of using artificial intelligence is linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements do not provide for significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 – 5 and 17 – 20, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 14. Recitations to providing insights in response to the call, in real-time, and the call being VoIP or video, are further recitations to core facets of the business relation regarding the incoming call. They describe technical aspects necessary to perform the abstract idea; therefore, they amount to instructing one to practice the abstract idea on a computer. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 6 – 8, and 11, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to determining (probabilistically) relevant data, and objects descriptive of the record data (opportunity, lead, summary transaction, new), are further recitations to inherent aspects of the business relation, as well as how to interpret (determine) that data. Therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea. Further, they rely on instructing one to practice the abstract idea on a computer. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 9 and 10 contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to the insight page (web technology) and a second user interface element, are instructions to perfom the abstract idea on a computer. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 12 – 13 and 15 – 16, contain limitations that are further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 14. Recitations to using AI to summarize records describes reliance upon a technology (technological environment) performed by the ordinary devices within claims 1 and 14. Artificial intelligence is broadly detailed within the disclosure, such as; “various types of artificial intelligence modules or engines can be used to generate insights.” and, “using artificial intelligence technologies”. This nominal description of AI technology, without significant details of how the modules or engines perform determining or analyzing, results in a conclusion that these claims merely recite a generic use of the ordinary devices to perform these steps within the abstract idea. The use of a hyperlink is describing use of instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.(f).
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant traverses the rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 6. Applicant argues the claims, as amended, provide “unconventional technical solutions to technological problems associated with providing insights dynamically in real-time…”. Applicant points to the August 4, 2025 memorandum as showing support that the instant amended claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology, and are therefore, eligible. See page 7. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, the memorandum notes that it is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance. Based on this guidance, the Examiner maintains that the amended claims recite an abstract idea because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As detailed above, the claims set forth a method for determining and displaying relevant records (data) regarding a currently received customer relationship call. Therefore, the claims recite activities performed as a business relation, or a commercial interaction among a caller and the customer representative. A commercial interaction is considered to recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument that the amended claims recite a particular solution to a problem is not persuasive. This argument is better noted when analyzing the additional elements, which is replied to next.
Analysis at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). As noted above, the additional elements in the claims recite: an insights page of an application at a computing device; a CRM system; using artificial intelligence (AI); at least one user interface element comprising a hyperlink that is selectable to display the at least one relevant record; at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of using artificial intelligence is linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements do not provide for significantly more.
Applicant has not disclosed any problem that the amended claims provide a solution for. The claims merely describe a process of analyzing records (data) relevant for a call(er), identifying pertinent data, ranking by priority that data, and then displaying the data. Applicant has not identified any technology-based problem that these method steps may resolve. Further, these common method steps are descriptive of a common business interaction, and therefore, describe an abstract idea. Lastly, the Examiner remarks that the claim steps identified earlier are also not steps (or components of the invention) that provide for any improvement. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See pages 7 – 8. In view of the amendments to the claims, and upon further research, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. A further discussion follows.
Claims Distinguished Over Prior Art
Regarding claims 1 – 20, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Certain prior cited art discloses methods for collecting and presenting information, (McCormack). Other art teaches customer service call routing methods and systems, (Prasad). However, the cited prior art of record fails to suggest or teach features of the amended instant claims. The Examiner concludes that the cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the following combination of elements; automatically determining records that are potentially relevant to the call and that are to potentially be included as part of an insights page of an application at a computing device by analyzing (CRM) information maintained at a CRM system, wherein automatically determining the records that are potentially relevant to the call comprises: predicting a subset of the relevant records most likely to be related to the call using artificial intelligence (AI), wherein the subset of the relevant records are ranked in priority order according to order of relevance; and automatically populating the insights page at a user interface of the computing device, wherein the insights page comprises: a summary of the CRM information extracted from at least one relevant record of the subset of the relevant records according to relative priority.
Accordingly, the current claim set is distinguished over prior art.
Noting that patentability of any claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner points to other rejections within this Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629