DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 07/01/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 arguments, see pages 20-24, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections to claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea because the claims are rooted in AI model processing which is not a mental process, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not analyzed as being directed towards a mental process. The claims are analyzed as directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims include sales activities and commercial activities including recommending a partner for a customer.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 14-15 and 18-19 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the claims are directed towards a practical application because the claims recite specific telemetry/cloud data and partner documentation to produce outputs and present the outputs on a user interface to drive actions as well as specific AI implementation (e.g. extracting data, clustering data, determining data, and outputting data), Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
A specific way of achieving a result of outputting data onto a user interface is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. The claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements do not amount to more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by merely using the user interface to output specific data that is analyzed using algorithms and models.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-20 of remarks filed 07/01/2026 that the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they improve customer-partner recommendations by improving accuracy and efficiency of identifying data using ML models, automatically matching, analyzing, and generating recommendations, and providing a user interface, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
It is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how improving customer-partner recommendations by improving accuracy and efficiency of identifying data using ML models, automatically matching, analyzing, and generating recommendations, and providing a user interface improves technology. Improving recommendations and accuracy and efficiency of identifying data is directed towards solving a commercial problem rather than a problem rooted in technology. Thus, the claims do not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on generic computer components and do not qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite: converting telemetry data and cloud data of the customer and a customer dataset of a plurality of industries associated with using a target product or service…establishing a per industry usage progression model for the target product or service…generating cluster-level growth curves as clusters, developing the clusters into product or service deployment stages per industry, and connecting the product or service deployment stages per industry into the per industry usage progression model, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of service and service deployment stages per industry is the same or different than the subsequent recitations of service and service deployment stages per industry. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites: the product or service deployment stages per industry, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of service deployment stages per industry in independent claim 1 is the same or different than the subsequent recitations of service deployment stages per industry. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The term “successful customer usages” in claims 2-3, 12-13 and 17-18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “successful customer usages” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is successful customer usages? What measures how successful a customer usage is? What is the scope? Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system, claims 11-15 are directed to a method, and claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
receiving a call requesting a first generative model to generate a partner recommendation for a customer of an entity;
constructing, via a prompt construction unit, a first prompt by appending to a first instruction string documentation submitted by partners of the entity and historical execution metrics associated with the partners, the first instruction string including instructions to the first generative model to determine partner capability data associated with the partners based on documentation and the historical execution metrics, wherein the partner capability data includes a predefined schema of a plurality of partner capability attributes;
providing as an input the first prompt appended with the documentation and the historical execution metrics to the first generative model and receiving as an output the partner capability data associated with the partners from the first generative model;
converting telemetry data and cloud data of the customer and a customer dataset of a plurality of industries associated with using a target product or service into usage data attributes of a standard schema, wherein the telemetry data and the cloud data include user session data and at least one of application programming interface (API) calls, resource usage, or error logs;
determining software usage data of the customer …based on the telemetry data and the cloud data in the standard schema;
establishing a per industry usage progression model for the target product or service by applying clustering algorithms to segment the customer dataset of the plurality of industries in the standard schema into homogenous groups based on time-series data, generating cluster-level growth curves as clusters, developing the clusters into product or service deployment stages per industry, and connecting the product or service deployment stages per industry into the per industry usage progression model;
processing the software usage data of the customer and contextual data associated with the customer to compare the software usage data of the customer against normative benchmarks of the per industry usage progression model, to determine which stage of the per industry usage progression model that the customer is currently at, and to determine an optimal action for the customer to fill a gap on the per industry usage progression model;
matching, via a match engine, the customer with one or more of the partners based on the software usage data of the customer, the optimal action, and the plurality of partner capability attributes associated with the partners; and…
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to sales activities and commercial interactions because the claim recites recommending partners for a customer in response to a request based on matching data determined for the customer with the data determined for the partners, determining, establishing, and analyzing the data for the partners and customer. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A data processing system comprising: a processor, and a machine-readable storage medium storing executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform the following operations: … using a first artificial intelligence (AI) model; providing for display in a customer relationship management user interface or notification surface the matched one or more of the partners and the optimal action to a client device associated with the entity, the customer, or the matched one or more of the partners (Claim 1, 11, and 16);
…the first AI model is a customer usage machine learning model, and the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of: training the customer usage machine learning model by labelling contextual features of the telemetry data and the cloud data in the standard schema, and inputting the labelled contextual features and training data to the customer usage machine learning model to iteratively execute inference in stepwise layers of a neural network, back- propagate based on demonstrated successful customer usages, (Claims 2, 12, and 17);
wherein the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of:..(Claim 3, 5, 6, 8-10);
…a neural network… (Claim 3, 13, and 18);
wherein the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of: … using a second AI model… (Claim 4, 14, and 19);
wherein the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of:… using the second AI model ...(Claim 7);
fine-tuning the first AI model by looping feedback into the match engine (Claim 9);
…using the first AI model (Claim 10);
A non-transitory computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed, cause a programmable device to perform functions of:..(Claim 16).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A data processing system comprising: a processor, and a machine-readable storage medium storing executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform the following operations: … using a first artificial intelligence (AI) model; providing for display in a customer relationship management user interface or notification surface the matched one or more of the partners and the optimal action to a client device associated with the entity, the customer, or the matched one or more of the partners (Claim 1, 11, and 16);
…the first AI model is a customer usage machine learning model, and the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of: training the customer usage machine learning model by labelling contextual features of the telemetry data and the cloud data in the standard schema, and inputting the labelled contextual features and training data to the customer usage machine learning model to iteratively execute inference in stepwise layers of a neural network, back- propagate based on demonstrated successful customer usages, (Claims 2, 12, and 17);
wherein the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of:..(Claim 3, 5, 6, 8-10);
…a neural network… (Claim 3, 13, and 18);
wherein the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of: … using a second AI model… (Claim 4, 14, and 19);
wherein the machine-readable storage medium further includes instructions configured to cause the processor alone or in combination with other processors to perform operations of:… using the second AI model ...(Claim 7);
fine-tuning the first AI model by looping feedback into the match engine (Claim 9);
…using the first AI model (Claim 10);
A non-transitory computer readable medium on which are stored instructions that, when executed, cause a programmable device to perform functions of:..(Claim 16).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Makhija et al. (US Pub. No. 20250272652 A1) related to large language models-based data processing in one or more enterprise applications including procurement and supply chain applications, Puskarich et al. (US Pub. No. 20240422181 A1) related to using a graph database including nodes and relationship vectors, and non-patent literature, Artificial Intelligence Assisted Service Marketing Using Deep Assisted Neural Network, related to AI assisted customer support system to deliver experiences that result in advocates and consumers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights