DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 15 December 2025.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 15, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1 and 3-16 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 15 December 2025:
a. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
b. Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
c. Rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
d. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
On pages 2-3 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of independent claims 1 and 15. Applicant argues that claims 1 and 15 do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One; do recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two; and/or do recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
The Office respectfully disagrees with the above remarks. Applicant cites claim 1’s “server” configured to perform the claimed “maintaining” and “updating,” and then Applicant asserts “This combination of limitations recites a specific technological solution that integrates event information from multiple disparate sources and implements a sophisticated scoring algorithm that dynamically updates relationship scores based on temporal decay and weighted metadata values” (remarks, paragraph spanning pages 2-3). Applicant also asserts that the claimed updating of the relationship score “represents a concrete technical implementation that cannot be performed mentally or with pencil and paper, as it requires continuous temporal calculations and complex weighting algorithms applied to metadata across multiple data sources” (remarks, page 3, first full paragraph). Applicant is advised that claims in a pending application must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See MPEP § 2111. Furthermore, with regards to subject matter eligibility analysis, “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions.” MPEP 2106(II). Applicant has failed to construe the claims under the BRI. None of the claims recite any “continuous” calculations nor an “complex” weighting algorithms. Claim 1 recites updating the relationship score. Interpreted under the BRI, the claimed updating is performed just once. Furthermore, the claimed “weighted values for different pieces of metadata associated with each event” are not “complex,” and even if they were, complex mathematical calculations remain mathematical calculations, i.e. an abstract idea under the ”Mathematical Concepts” grouping. In conclusion, claim 1’s “maintaining” and “updating” limitations, when interpreted under the BRI, are abstract ideas under the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings, as detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Also as detailed below, the claimed “server” is a high level recitation of a generic computing component, which cannot provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant also points to the claimed user interface that provides the generated recommendations and certain visualizations. Applicant asserts “This
represents a specific technical architecture for providing sophisticated data visualizations that integrate multiple types of information in a unified interface” (remarks, page 3, second full paragraph). Once again, Applicant’s remarks are untethered to the claim language and not based on the BRI of the claims. The claims do not recite any “specific technical architecture” nor any “sophisticated data visualizations.” Rather, the claimed user interface providing generated recommendations and visualizations is recited at a high level and amounts to no more than mere data outputting, which the courts have deemed to be insignificant extra solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize the claimed user interface to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity1. In addition, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the claimed user interface or its functions (see, for example, para. 0127 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that these elements are well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that the claimed user interface is conventional and performed well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)2. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claim 1 is ineligible, as set forth above.
Claims 3-14 and 16 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons that claims 1 and 15 are ineligible, as set forth above, and for the additional reasons detailed below in the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 and 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1 and 15, these claims recite “build and maintain a graph schema representing a graph of relationships between the set of users and the set of contacts, wherein the graph of relationships is based at least in part on the event information.” The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed “set of users” and “set of contacts” encompasses just a few users and a few contacts. The number of relationships is not specified by the claim, and the BRI of the claimed “relationships” encompasses just a few relationships. Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses such a simple case, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed building and maintaining a graph schema to represent a graph of relationships between the users and contacts. Making the graph of relationships based on event information is also achievable mentally by a human with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, a human could draw out on a piece of paper a graph of relationships for the simple number of users and contacts encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Looking at a log of emails, phone calls, and/or meetings (claimed “event information), a human could draw an edge in the graph between nodes representing a user and a contact if the two have recently engaged in one of these events. In this way, the graph schema representing a graph of relationships could be built. It could be maintained by adding an edge between a particular user and contact when a new event occurs. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite the following:
“maintaining the graph schema comprises updating a relationship score for a relationship between a particular user of the set of users and at least one contact of the set of contacts based on metadata for events associated with the particular user and the particular contact, and
updating the relationship score is based at least in part upon the passage of time since an event between the particular user and the at least one contact and weighted values for different pieces of metadata associated with each event.”
Read in light of the instant specification, the claimed “relationship score” is a numerical quantity computed via a mathematical formula (see para. 0025 and 0106 of Applicant’s published specification). Since the claimed updating of the relationship score amounts to no more than mathematical operation(s), the above limitations are abstract ideas under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively the above limitations may deemed abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping because, for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human can calculate and update the relationship score as claimed.
These claims also recite “for the particular user of the set of users, generate recommendations concerning the particular user and the at least one contact of the set of contacts based upon analysis of the graph schema.” Looking at the simple graph schema encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could mentally analyze the graph schema to generate recommendations in the manner claimed. As an illustrative example, if user A is connected by an edge to contact B, and contact B is connected to user C, then a human looking a graph representation of these relationships could recommend that user A should initiate communication with user C. This is because the graph schema shows that users A and C have a mutual contact (i.e. contact B), and hence there is a likelihood that these two users would benefit from initiating communication with each other. Since it can be performed mentally with the aid of pencil and paper, the claimed generating of recommendations is also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “establish a set of one or more connections with a set of one or more information sources”;
b) “retrieve, via the set of connections with the set of information sources, event information associated with a plurality of events between a set of one or more users and a set of one or more contacts, wherein the plurality of events comprises at least one of: a message between a user of the set of users and a contact of the set of contacts; and a meeting between a user of the set of users and a contact of the set of contacts”;
c) “provide, at a user interface, the generated recommendations, wherein providing the generated recommendations comprises providing: a visualization of the updated relationship score for the relationship between the particular user and the at least one contact: a recent interaction between the particular user and the at least one contact; and a visualization of a trend for the relationship score for the relationship between the particular user and the at least one contact.”;
d) “at least one server having at least one processor and memory containing software.”
Limitations (a) and (b) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (c) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (d) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations (a) and (b) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); 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); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (c) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would recognize element (c) to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity3. In addition, Applicant’s specification provides few details about the elements (a) through (c) or their functions (see, for example, para. 0068 and 0127 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that these elements are well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional elements (a) through (c) are conventional and performed well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)4. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional element (d) amounts to no more than a mere field of use limitation and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to claims 3-4, these claims recite features for scoring relationships between users and contacts. These scoring features amount to no more than mathematical calculation(s) (see para. 0025 and 0106 of Applicant’s published specification). Hence, these claims recite an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping. Alternatively these limitations may deemed abstract ideas under the “Mental Processes” grouping because, for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human can calculate and update the relationship score as claimed. Other than the abstract idea, these claims recite no additional elements. These claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
As to claim 5, this claim merely recites the source(s) from which the claimed system retrieves information. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment. Hence, this claim cannot provide a practical application under step 2A, Prong Two nor an inventive concept under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to claims 6 and 7, these claims merely recites the source(s) of information from which the claimed system retrieves information (i.e. messaging, email, calendar, and social network systems) and/or the types of information retrieved (i.e. messages, emails, and meetings). Hence, these claims amount to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment. Hence, these claims cannot provide a practical application under step 2A, Prong Two nor an inventive concept under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to claim 8, this claim merely recites the type of action that is recommended to the particular user (i.e. sending an email, making a phone call, or setting up a meeting). The claim does not recite any features that limit the claimed technique for generating recommendations concerning actions the particular user is to take. Hence, this claim amounts to no more than an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular field of use and/or technological environment. Hence, this claim cannot provide a practical application under step 2A, Prong Two nor an inventive concept under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to claim 9, this claim recites “wherein at least one of the recommendations is based on an objective of the particular user.” The claimed “objective” is interpreted according to its plain meaning, as follows: “something toward which effort is directed: an aim, goal, or end of action”5. With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can mentally perform the claimed generating of recommendations, as set forth above in the parent claim. Specifying that these recommendations are based on an objective of the particular user does not change this fact. For example, if the particular user is a company salesman, this user’s objective might be to maximize sales. A person looking at a graph of potential customers would then prefer to recommend a node that represents a purchase manager at one of the customer companies, as opposed to another type of manager, since contacting the purchasing manager is more likely to lead to a sale. Hence, it is clear that generating the recommendations such that they are based on an objective of the particular user, as claimed, can be mentally performed by a human. Therefore, this claim is directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping without significantly more.
As to claims 10-12, these claims merely provide details of a particular field of use and/or technological environment in which to practice the invention, i.e. one that has a customer relationship management (CRM) system. Hence, these claims cannot provide a practical application under step 2A, Prong Two nor an inventive concept under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As to claim 13, this claim recites “wherein providing the generated recommendations comprises providing a set of prioritized actions for the particular user for achieving the objective.” With the aid of pencil and paper, a human could mentally perform the claimed generating of recommendations, as set forth above in the parent claim. Specifying that these recommendations comprise providing a set of prioritized actions, as claimed, does not change this fact. For example, suppose the particular user is a company salesman and the objective is maximizing sales. As set forth above in the parent claim, a human looking at the graph could generate recommendations for the salesman, such as identifying a node in the graph representing a person the salesman should contact to try to make a sale. The human could also mentally produce a set of prioritized actions in relation to this recommendation, such as the following (presented in order of priority): a) attempt to schedule an in-person meeting with the contact, b) attempt a phone conversation with the contact, and c) email the contact. Hence, it is clear that generating the recommendations such that they comprise providing a set of prioritized actions, as claimed, can be mentally performed by a human. Therefore, this claim is directed to an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping without significantly more.
As to claim 14, this claim recites “wherein the set of contacts comprises at least one user of the set of users.” This limitation merely provides certain details of the claimed “set of contacts,” but the claimed technique for building/maintaining a graph schema and generating recommendations remains unchanged. These limitations remain mentally performable by a human with the aid of pencil and paper, as set forth above in the parent claim. Hence, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim is not patent eligible.
As to claim 16, this claim recites “wherein the user interface is provided at at least one selected from the group consisting of a web browser and a mobile application.” This amounts to no more than a particular field of use and/or technological environment in which to practice the invention. Hence, this claim cannot provide a practical application under step 2A, Prong Two nor an inventive concept under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 See the following:
Liesche et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20100070871 A1; para. 0017-0022;
Jones, Quentin; U.S. PGPub. No. 20090106040 A1; para. 0005-0007;
Farnham et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20070106780 A1; para. 0048;
Bolivar et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20110010324 A1; para. 0003-0004;
2 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
3 See the following:
Liesche et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20100070871 A1; para. 0017-0022;
Jones, Quentin; U.S. PGPub. No. 20090106040 A1; para. 0005-0007;
Farnham et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20070106780 A1; para. 0048;
Bolivar et al.; U.S. PGPub. No. 20110010324 A1; para. 0003-0004;
4 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
5 “Objective.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective. Accessed 5 Sep. 2022.