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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/06/2026 has been entered.
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 05/06/2026 have been entered.
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 the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, 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, by a server at the CRM system, records of one or more different types of CRM objects at a database of the CRM system that are potentially relevant to the call and that are to potentially be included as part of an insights page populated by the server at the CRM system of an application at a computing device coupled to the CRM system over a network by analyzing CRM information maintained at the database of the CRM system, wherein automatically determining the records that are potentially relevant to the call comprises:
identifying relevant records of the one or more different types of CRM objects at the database of 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 (Al), wherein the subset of the relevant records are ranked in priority order according to order of relevance; and
automatically populating, by the server at the CRM system, the insights page at a user interface of the application at the computing device, wherein the insights page comprises:
a summary of the CRM information of a respective type of CRM object of the one or more different types of CRM objects 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, at the computing device, the at least one relevant record of the respective type of CRM object at the database of the CRM system.
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:
a server at the CRM system;
an application at a computing device coupled to the CRM system over a network;
the database of the CRM system;
using artificial intelligence (Al);
the insights page at a user interface of the application at the computing device;
at least one user interface element comprising a hyperlink that is selectable to display, at the computing device, the at least one relevant record of the respective type of CRM object at the database of the CRM system;
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 recites “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).
A further key point of distinction to be made for AI recitations is between a claim that reflects an improvement to a computer or other technology described in the specification (which is eligible) and a claim in which the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent – “using artificial intelligence (Al)”), or are no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception on a computer, or (2) a general linking of the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (which is ineligible). 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 (a server at the CRM system; an application at a computing device coupled to the CRM system over a network; the database of the CRM system; using artificial intelligence (Al); a user interface of the application at the computing device; at least one user interface element comprising a hyperlink that is selectable; 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).
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 perform the abstract idea on a computer – a common display, see [0046]. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
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. A further key point of distinction to be made for AI recitations is between a claim that reflects an improvement to a computer or other technology described in the specification (which is eligible) and a claim in which the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent – “using artificial intelligence (Al)”), or are no more than instructions to implement a judicial exception on a computer, (which is ineligible). 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 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the rejection of all prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 6. Applicant argues the claims, as amended, “integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a technological improvement and providing unconventional technical solutions to technological problems…”. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
First, many of Applicant’s arguments as to what technical improvement is provided are misplaced and not persuasive. Applicant argues improving productivity, reducing workload, probabilistically predict[ing] and rank[ing], summariz[ing] the highest ranked information, as technical improvements. This is not accurate. These would describe improvements to the human efforts required to determine an insight when a customer calls into a service center. Applicant discloses these as improvements to the “time-consuming, inefficient, and difficult to do” tasks when a call is received from a caller. An improvement to a callee’s efforts is an improvement to activities performed within a business relation – the commercial interaction among a caller and the customer representative – callee. Therefore, any improvement to the commercial interaction is an improvement to an abstract idea, and does not add persuasiveness to Applicant’s argument.
Second, problematic to Applicant’s arguments is the ordinary devices used to “speed up the process of identifying and accessing records…to improve user experience.” Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their disclosure, at Specification [0039-0040], and Figure 11, as filed. Notably, “the data and services provided by the server 102 can be retrieved using any sort of personal computer, mobile telephone, tablet or other network-enabled user system 140 on the network 145.” Further, “…each method is computer-implemented in that various tasks or steps that are performed in connection with each method may be performed by software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof.” See also, “any of user systems 812 can be a desktop computer, a work station, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a handheld computing device, a mobile cellular phone (for example, a "smartphone"), or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device, wireless access protocol (WAP)-enabled device, or other computing device capable of interfacing directly or indirectly to the Internet or other network.” Therefore, when evaluating the combination of additional elements within the amended claims, the Examiner has determined that the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). At 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.” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant points to the August 04 and December 05 memorandums as providing further support to find eligible subject matter. This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner points to both of these memorandums as specifically denoting that “[t]hese updates are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance.” Therefore, the Examiner maintains, and has detailed above, that the amended claims set forth a method for determining and displaying relevant records (data) regarding a currently received customer relationship call. The claims describe activities performed within 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.
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). The additional elements identified are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant’s reliance on Core Wireless as exemplifying similarly eligible claim recitations is not persuasive. Applicant argues amended claim 1 recites an insight page “representing an improved user face” that displays a summary and “a hyperlink selectable to display a relevant record…”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that any improved user face is claimed. First, this interface is generically described and not critical for the presentation of the insight page. See Specification [0116] which details this element as: “…a user interface (UI) 930 and an application programming interface (API) 932 to system 816 resident processes to users or developers at user systems 912. In some other implementations, the environment 810 may not have the same elements as those listed above or may have other elements instead of, or in addition to, those listed above.” The portion of Fig 9 detailing the user interface is reproduced below, showing a common device operating in its ordinary capacity.
PNG
media_image1.png
131
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further figures show this UI as a few differing presentations; however, all uses of this UI is in its ordinary capacity, that is, the display of visual elements, sounds, or physical controls. Applicant has not improved the mechanicals or steps of how to present an interface, but rather, merely altered the data displayed. In Core, while the generic idea of summarizing information was known, the claims were directed to a “particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices” that improved the efficiency of the electronic device over the prior art. Therefore, those claims were not directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit for Core determined that the claims disclosed an improved user interface for electronic devices and essentially described “a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user,” which improved the speed and functionality of the user interface for electronic devices.” Thus, those claims included the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
No such improvement description is within the instant Specification, nor no steps or components reflecting any improvement are within the instant claims. The amended claims merely recite populating an insights page at a user interface, comprised of: a summary and an interface element. Applicant has not solved a technical problem inherent with presenting on an interface or summarizing the CRM information. Applicant has, however, remarked that a method for identifying relevant records has been improved. This would describe an improvement in the business relation, and not an improvement to technology as argued.
Applicant’s final remarks as to a “specific architecture” are not persuasive. “As shown in FIGS. 10A and 10B, accessing an on-demand database service environment can involve communications transmitted among a variety of different hardware or software components.” These components are broadly and generically defined, see Specification [0125-0133]. It is important to note that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05.
The similar arguments aimed at amended claim 14 suffer the same fate as amended claim 1 as discussed above. Accordingly, the arguments for claim 14, page 8, are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Regarding the amened claims, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed within. Upon updated searching, the Examiner maintains the conclusion that 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;
A method of providing insights during a call, the method comprising:
automatically determining, by a server at the CRM system, records of one or more different types of CRM objects at a database of the CRM system that are potentially relevant to the call and that are to potentially be included as part of an insights page populated by the server at the CRM system of an application at a computing device coupled to the CRM system over a network by analyzing CRM information maintained at the database of the 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 (Al), wherein the subset of the relevant records are ranked in priority order according to order of relevance; and automatically populating, by the server at the CRM system, the insights page at a user interface of the application at the computing device, wherein the insights page comprises: a summary of the CRM information of a respective type of CRM object of the one or more different types of CRM objects 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 and remarks within this Office Action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kannan discloses a method for using interaction data associated with past customer interactions.
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
Prosecution Insights