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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 2 September 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 18
Applicant’s reliance on Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 113 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2024) is unpersuasive. Translated to the process used by the Patent Office in examination under the MPEP, Content IP Holding held that the recited invention, as an ordered combination, was directed to an improvement to technology. Here, Examiner held that as an ordered combination, the invention was not directed to an improvement to technology. Applicant advances no argument why Examiner’s reasoning is wrong, but merely disagrees without offering a rationale. This is not persuasive.
Applicant reliance on Ex Parte Carter, No. 2018-007242 (P.T.A.B. April 16, 2019) is unpersuasive. Whereas a person would solve a logic problem instinctively without performing statistical analysis, a person would keep track of relatedness with a graph of nodes and edges: it brings to mind the image of investigating a crime with notecards linked by and red strings.
Applicant suggests that Examiner is not following the MPEP. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the grounds of rejection, the invention recites the abstract idea of identifying related communications under Step 2A, Prong One, generally links the use of the abstract idea of identifying related communications to the field of digital communications, see MPEP § 2106.05(h), by using generic computing functions, see MPEP § 2106.05(f), and is therefore directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two, and using generic computing functions to automate an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, and conventional, see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and therefore fails to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the invention is patentable because it does not preempt identifying related communications. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2106.04 (“the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.”). Just because someone could identify related communications using some other specific generic computing function does not make identifying related communications using the specific claimed generic computing function patentable. What is needed is an improvement to technology, and Applicant has yet to provide evidence of one. Rather, the invention merely applies established methods of machine learning to a new data environment. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Claim 9
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. New grounds of rejection are presented. Training a ML model to classify first communication and second communication as related communications or unrelated communications is mere instruction to apply the exception of classifying first communication and second communication as related communications or unrelated communications on a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2); Specification [0045]. No improvement to a ML model or a training process is asserted in the specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(a); c.f. Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, pg. 8 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential). Rather, the invention merely applies established methods of machine learning to a new data environment. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All the limitations of claim 20 are already present in claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 7-9, and 13-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 18:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “tokenizing a new communication from a first sender into a first plurality of tokens,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “tokenizing” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to split the new communication into tokens. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “identifying a plurality of communications associated with the first sender, the identifying the plurality of communications comprises identifying the plurality of communications using a graph, wherein: the graph comprises a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a communication comprising a second plurality of tokens, one or more first pairs of nodes in the plurality of nodes are connected via a first edge in the graph based on each node in each of the one or more first pairs of nodes corresponding to a communication from a same sender, and one or more second pairs of nodes in the plurality of nodes are connected via a second edge in the graph based on each of the one or more second pairs of nodes corresponding to related communications,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., by looking at Graph 204 of Figure 2 of the instant invention, that given communications are associated with a given sender. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each respective communication of the plurality of communications associated with the first sender: generating a self-attention data element comprising a plurality of attention values determined based on the first plurality of tokens associated with the new communication and a second plurality of tokens associated with the respective communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to organize the values using pen and paper, e.g., as Applicant has done. Fig. 3A. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each respective communication of the plurality of communications associated with the first sender: determining a first plurality of features from the self-attention data element,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. Specification [0183]. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “for each respective communication of the plurality of communications associated with the first sender: determining a second plurality of features based on metadata associated with the new communication and the respective communication, the second plurality of features comprise at least one of: a time difference between the new communication and the respective communication, or a number of recipients common between the new communication and the respective communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to a time difference between the new communication and the respective communication, or a number of recipients common between the new communication and the respective communication. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each respective communication of the plurality of communications associated with the first sender: concatenating the first plurality of features and the second plurality of features to create a concatenated vector of features,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “concatenating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write one after the other. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each respective communication of the plurality of communications associated with the first sender: processing the concatenated vector of features and to generate a score indicating a relatedness of the respective communication to the new communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. Specification [0183]. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining one or more communications of the plurality of communications are related to the new communication based on each of the one or more communications having a score above a threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to whether one number is bigger than another number. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “updating the graph to include: a new node corresponding to the new communication, and a new first edge connecting the new node to each node of the plurality of nodes corresponding to the plurality of communications associated with the first sender as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “updating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., how to draw Graph 204 of Figure 2 of the instant invention. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, that the processing is “with a machine learning (ML) model trained to identify related communications,” is mere instruction to implement the abstract idea of “processing” on a computer, thereby merely using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, that the processing is “with a machine learning (ML) model trained to identify related communications,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0045] (“ML model 160 may be any model capable of being applied on a vector. For example, ML model 160 may be a multilayer perception (MLP) model, a support vector machine (SVM), a tree-based model, to name a few.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 19:
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “generating for display on a computing device the one or more communications,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “generating for display on a computing device the one or more communications,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 7:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “concatenating the first plurality of tokens associated with the new communication and the second plurality of tokens associated with the respective communication to generate a concatenated plurality of tokens,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “concatenating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write the second plurality of tokens after the first plurality of tokens. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “encoding the concatenated plurality of tokens,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “encoding” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to a number associated with each token. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating the self-attention data element comprising a two-dimensional array of cells, wherein: each row in the self-attention data element corresponds to a respective token of the concatenated plurality of tokens, each column in the self-attention data element corresponds to a respective token of the concatenated plurality of tokens,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write down the values, e.g., like in Figure 2A of the instant application. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining an attention value for each cell in the self-attention data element, the attention value being between the respective token corresponding to the row where the cell is positioned in the self-attention data element and the respective token corresponding to the column where the cell is positioned in the self-attention data element,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 8:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining the first plurality of features from the self-attention data element comprises computing one or more statistics for a subset of the plurality of attention values and a second subset of the plurality of attention values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “the subset of attention values comprise the attention values determined for the cells in the self-attention data element corresponding to both a first token of the concatenated plurality of tokens associated with the first plurality of tokens associated with the new communication and a second token of the concatenated plurality of tokens associated with the second plurality of tokens associated with the respective communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 9:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: generating a self-attention data element comprising a plurality of attention values for a plurality of tokens associated with the training data instance, wherein the plurality of tokens are from a first communication and a second communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to organize the values using pen and paper, e.g., as Applicant has done. Fig. 3A. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: determining a first plurality of features from the self-attention data element,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. Specification [0183]. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: determining a second plurality of features based on metadata associated with the first communication and the second communication, the second plurality of features comprising at least one of: a time difference between the first communication and the second communication, or a number of recipients common between the first communication and the second communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to a time difference between the new communication and the respective communication, or a number of recipients common between the new communication and the respective communication. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: concatenating the first plurality of features and the second plurality of features to create a concatenated vector of features associated with the training data instance,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “concatenating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write one after the other. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: using a loss function to determine a loss value based on the classification output,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “obtaining a plurality of training data instances based on a plurality of communications organized in a graph, wherein the graph comprises a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a communication of the plurality of nodes, one or more first pairs of nodes in the plurality of nodes are connected via a first edge in the graph based on each node in each of the one or more first pairs of nodes corresponding to a communication from a same sender, and one or more second pairs of nodes in the plurality of nodes are connected via a second edge in the graph based on each of the one or more second pairs of nodes corresponding to related communications,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: training the ML model to classify the first communication and the second communication as related communications or unrelated communications and thereby generate a classification output using the first plurality of features, the training the ML model to classify the first communication and the second communication as the related communications or the unrelated communications and thereby generate the classification output using the first plurality of features comprising training the ML model to classify the first communication and the second communication as the related communications or the unrelated communications and thereby generate the classification output using the concatenated vector of features generated for the training data instance;” is mere instruction to implement the abstract idea of classifying a first communication and a second communication as related communications or unrelated communications using a computer as a tool because the ML model is invoked in its ordinary capacity after the fact to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: modifying one or more parameters of the ML model based on the loss value,” is mere instruction to implement the abstract idea of classifying a first communication and a second communication as related communications or unrelated communications using a computer as a tool because the ML model is invoked in its ordinary capacity after the fact to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity or mere instructions to apply on a computer, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “obtaining a plurality of training data instances based on a plurality of communications organized in a graph, wherein the graph comprises a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes corresponds to a communication of the plurality of nodes, one or more first pairs of nodes in the plurality of nodes are connected via a first edge in the graph based on each node in each of the one or more first pairs of nodes corresponding to a communication from a same sender, and one or more second pairs of nodes in the plurality of nodes are connected via a second edge in the graph based on each of the one or more second pairs of nodes corresponding to related communications,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: training the ML model to classify the first communication and the second communication as related communications or unrelated communications and thereby generate a classification output using the first plurality of features, the training the ML model to classify the first communication and the second communication as the related communications or the unrelated communications and thereby generate the classification output using the first plurality of features comprising training the ML model to classify the first communication and the second communication as the related communications or the unrelated communications and thereby generate the classification output using the concatenated vector of features generated for the training data instance;” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the model being trained is described, Specification [0045] (“ML model 160 may be any model capable of being applied on a vector. For example, ML model 160 may be a multilayer perception (MLP) model, a support vector machine (SVM), a tree-based model, to name a few.”), in a manner that indicates that training models is 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). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The limitation, “for each training data instance of the plurality of training data instances: modifying one or more parameters of the ML model based on the loss value,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional because modifying ML parameters to minimize a loss value is described, Wikipedia, Loss functions for classification, as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “for each training data instance: randomly selecting the first communication and the second communication from the plurality of communications, wherein the first communication comprises a first plurality of tokens and the second communication comprises a second plurality of tokens,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “randomly selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to whether or not to select a particular communication. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each training data instance: concatenating the first plurality of tokens and the second plurality of tokens to generate the plurality of tokens associated with the training data instance,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “concatenating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write one after the other. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “for each training data instance: labeling the training data instance with a label based on whether the first edge or the second edge exists between a first node of plurality of nodes in the graph corresponding to the first communication and a second node of the plurality of nodes in the graph corresponding to the second communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “labeling” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to what label to apply. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the label classifies the first communication and the second communication as the related communications or the unrelated communications,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “labeling” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to what label to apply. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 15:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “encoding the plurality of tokens associated with the training data instance,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “encoding” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to a number associated with each token. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating the self-attention data element comprising a two-dimensional array of cells, wherein: each row in the self-attention data element corresponds to a respective token of the plurality of tokens, each column in the self-attention data element corresponds to a respective token of the plurality of tokens,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write down the values, e.g., like in Figure 2A of the instant application. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining an attention value for each cell in the self-attention data element, the attention value being between the respective token corresponding to the row where the cell is positioned in the self-attention data element and the respective token corresponding to the column where the cell is positioned in the self-attention data element,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining the first plurality of features from the self-attention data element comprises computing one or more statistics for a subset of the plurality of attention values and a second subset of the plurality of attention values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “the subset of attention values comprise the attention values determined for the cells in the self-attention data element corresponding to both a first token of the plurality of tokens associated with the first communication and a second token of the plurality of tokens associated with the second communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 17:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the loss function comprises a binary cross entropy loss function,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining a second plurality of features based on metadata associated with the new communication and the respective communication,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to what time each communication was sent. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “concatenating the first plurality of features and the second plurality of features to create a concatenated vector of features,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “concatenating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to how to write one after the other. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein processing, with the ML model, the first plurality of features comprises processing, with the ML model, the concatenated vector of features,” is mere instruction to implement the abstract idea of “processing” on a computer, thereby merely using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein processing, with the ML model, the first plurality of features comprises processing, with the ML model, the concatenated vector of features,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0045] (“ML model 160 may be any model capable of being applied on a vector. For example, ML model 160 may be a multilayer perception (MLP) model, a support vector machine (SVM), a tree-based model, to name a few.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 21:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein a first type of edge is based on a reply functionality used by at least one of the one or more communications of the plurality of communications,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., by looking at Graph 204 of Figure 2 of the instant invention, that given communications are associated with a given sender. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 22:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the one or more communications of the plurality of communications are ranked based on their respective scores,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “ranking” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., as to which communication has a higher score. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 23:
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the generating for display on a computing device the one or more communications comprises to beneficially provide a user with context about a relatedness between a plurality of communications,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the generating for display on a computing device the one or more communications comprises to beneficially provide a user with context about a relatedness between a plurality of communications,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 24:
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the generating for display on a computing device the one or more communications further comprises to automatically display to the user language included in the one or more communications,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the generating for display on a computing device the one or more communications further comprises to automatically display to the user language included in the one or more communications,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to present information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 25:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the one or more statistics comprises: one or more mean values; one or more mode values; one or more median values; one or more maximum values; or one or more minimum values” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 26:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the one or more statistics are determined in the self-attention data element: on a per-row basis; or on a per-column basis” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 27:
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the ML model is: an MLP model, an SVM, or a tree-based model,” is mere instruction to implement the abstract idea of classifying a first communication and a second communication as related communications or unrelated communications using a computer as a tool because the ML model is invoked in its ordinary capacity after the fact to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the use of the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are mere instruction to apply an exception, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, that the processing is “wherein the ML model is: an MLP model, an SVM, or a tree-based model,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0045] (“ML model 160 may be any model capable of being applied on a vector. For example, ML model 160 may be a multilayer perception (MLP) model, a support vector machine (SVM), a tree-based model, to name a few.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Conclusion
The prior art does not teach the idea of using self-attention to determine communications related to a new communication. Furthermore, this would appear to be obvious only in hindsight; there does not appear to be any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to self-attention to determine communications related to a new communication. That is, there is no evidence of a burden of trying to, e.g., find an email associated with a sender of an email reading “Would you be able to offer a discount on the provided quote?” that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to look to self-attention to automate the burden of going through one’s emails.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159