DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to applicant response filed on 10/20/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-15, 17, and 20 are amended. Claims 6, 8-9, 16, and 18-19 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the customer interaction data” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1. However, it appears to examiner that as typographical error is due applicant’s amendment to claim deleting phrase “customer”. Examiner treating this phrase as “the client interaction data”. Appropriate correction 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 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). Claims 11-15, 17, and 20 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, Claims 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17 and 20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Independent claims 1 and 11 as a whole directed toward an abstract idea of procuring goods or services (i.e. receiving interaction data from multiple sources, scoring interactions, identifying/excluding/discounting false positives, passing results to a customer relationship management, and building contact profiles. These fall within the examples of abstract ideas (organizing information, data analysis, creating and managing records) which falls under abstract idea bucket of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computing systems and electronic device and using machine learning algorithm, that recite that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the additional elements of the electronic device (BRI of which is general purpose computer) fail to recite a practical application because they are instructions to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7, 10, 12-15, 17 and 20 merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
The prior arts of record does not teach or suggest out-of-office reply and assistant interaction as taught by the claims, a combination of profile elements, and profile generation as claimed, among other features of the independent claims. Upon further searching various databases claims as whole appears to be non- obvious combination of limitations.
Response to Arguments
As to the remark, Applicant asserted that the claims are limited to a specific technical implementation involving integration of multiple data sources, extraction of metadata, and use of machine learning for real-time assessment and profile updating. The claims do not preempt all ways of organizing human activity or assessing client relationships; they are limited to the specific technical solution described. According to MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), claims that improve computer functionality or solve a technical problem with a specific technical solution are patent eligible. The Federal Circuit has found claims patent eligible where they are directed to specific improvements in computer technology (see, e.g., Enfish, McRO, DDR Holdings) Examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s remark for the following reasons:
Examiner would like to point out to applicant that The claims are directed to collecting client interaction data from multiple sources, scoring/interpreting those interactions, removing or discounting false positives, supplying results to a CRM, and building client profiles. These activities fall squarely within the abstract-idea groupings set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as “organizing information,” “analyzing information,” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., customer relationship management). See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claim invokes a “trained machine learning algorithm” and generic modules on a backend device, but does not recite how the algorithm or the system is implemented in a way that improves computer functioning (e.g., a new data structure, specialized pipeline, reduced I/O/latency via a specific mechanism). Merely using ML does not, by itself, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Contrast with Enfish (improved self-referential table) and McRO (specific rule-based automation) where the claims recited concrete technical techniques that improved the computer’s operation. [Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699