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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite retrieving rules, candidate subjects, candidate recipients, and contextual information from one or more databases; identifying candidate communications; applying a model to generate response metrics indicating a likelihood of a desired recipient response; selecting a communication based on those metrics; and generating a template for the communication.
The limitation of retrieving rules, candidate subjects, candidate recipients, and contextual information, 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. That is, other than reciting retrieval “from one or more databases,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “from one or more databases” language, “retrieving” in the context of this claim encompasses a person manually consulting written records or memory to obtain rules, subjects, recipients, and contextual information. Similarly, the limitation of identifying candidate communications based on the retrieved data, 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, but for the “by a model” language, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally associating subjects and recipients to form candidate communications.
The limitation of applying a model to generate response metrics and selecting a communication based on those metrics, as drafted, is also a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, could be performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “applying a model” language, “generating response metrics” encompasses a person mentally estimating the likelihood of a recipient’s desired response and “selecting” encompasses choosing the communication with the highest estimated likelihood.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8 and 15 only recite additional elements such as “retrieving from one or more databases” and “applying a model” to perform the selection. The databases and model are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic storage and processing components performing generic computer functions of retrieving, analyzing, and selecting information) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, of using databases and a model to retrieve, analyze, and select communications amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2–7, 9-14 and 16-20 depend from their respective independent claim 1, 8 and 15 and thus incorporate the abstract idea discussed above. The additional limitations recited — such as modifying content based on contextual information (claims 2, 9 and 16), weighing contextual information with an orchestration factor (claims 3, 10 and 17), balancing content distribution and communication preference (claims 4, 11 and 18), determining content and adding it to a template for presentation (claims 5, 12 and 19), selecting a template using a machine learning model (claims 6, 13 and 20), and determining a communication channel using a machine learning model and transmitting the communication (claims 7 and 14) — are also processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “machine learning model” language, these steps encompass a person mentally choosing a template or communication channel based on known preferences and then sending the communication.
The recited machine learning models, orchestration factors, and templates are described at a high level of generality and amount to generic computer functions applied to the abstract idea.
They do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0314239 to Salter.
As concerns claims 1 (method), 8 (CRM) and 15 (system-one or more processors (0117)), comprising:
retrieving, from one or more databases (0024-databases; 0078-previous communications; 0029-storage of communications; 0078-account data store), a set of data comprising rules (0029-communication exchanges, rules) related to communication preferences (0078-preferences; 0028-preferences), information describing a plurality of candidate subjects (0029-communication targets) for communications, and information describing candidate recipients (0028-information about user; 0078-account data store);
identifying candidate communications (0029-access communication exchange; 0059) using the retrieved set of data, each candidate communication having a subject (0030-communication relates to a particular item; 0059; 0066-topic) of the candidate subjects and a target recipient (0028-associated user; 0038-destination data) of the recipients;
retrieving, from the one or more databases, contextual information (0028-information included in messages; 0059-data pertaining to communications; 0067-0068-message metadata, metrics; 0078-contexts, preferences; 0082) related to the subjects;
selecting a communication (0060-previous data, historical data; 0082-retrieved data pertaining to user device influences routing) from the candidate communications using the retrieved contextual information, the selecting comprising:
applying a model (0060-machine learning models; 0095-machine learning model; 0029-monitor communications and detect issues based on defined rules; “model” BRI can be satisfied by the “defined rules”; 0098; 0106) to the candidate communications and the retrieved contextual information to generate corresponding response metrics (0070; 0071-parameters, weights assigned to parameters; 0076), each response metric indicating a likelihood that the target recipient of the corresponding candidate communication will have a desired response (0070-influence routing; 0072-determine client is to respond; 0074-parameter to reflect a degree to which a given terminal is predicted to be suited to respond; 0076; 0113-initial intent value, based on expectations of a likely reason for a user to interact with a system) to the candidate communication, and
selecting the communication based on the response metrics (0070-biased towards; 0071-0072-communication type; 0076); and
generating a template (0096-generate response based on model; messaged based on a type is a “template’; “template” is a broad term and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims; 0071-0072-communication type; 0098-customized communications) for the communication including information about the subject (0096-genere response based on model and intent “subject”) of the communication.
As concerns claims 2, 9 and 16 the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 wherein selecting a communication from the candidate communications using the retrieved contextual information further comprises: modifying (0030-containing additional information, based on monitoring and rules-based action; 0065-transforming formatting or communication type; 0084-modify message; 0098-customized) content of the selected candidate communication based on the retrieved contextual information.
As concerns claims 3, 10 and 17 the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 wherein the model includes an orchestration factor that weighs (0033-prioritization, weights to apply to various variables impacting routing; 0071-weights assigned to parameters) the contextual information for each of the one or more candidate communications.
As concerns claims 4, 11 and 18 and the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 wherein each response metric balances content distribution and communication preference (0072-communication type, priority; 0033-weights, routing; 0082) of the corresponding candidate communication.
As concerns claims 5, 12 and 19 the invention of claims 1, 8 and 15 wherein generating the template for the communication comprises: determining content (0095-0097-intent, context) of the communication; and adding the content to a template (0095-0097-response based on intent and context; 0098); and providing the template including the content for presentation at a computing device (0096-display response data; 0097).
As concerns claims 6, 13 and 20 the invention of claims 5, 12 and 19 wherein generating the template further comprises: providing the determined content to a machine learning model (0096-0097-intent indicator data or multiple elements processed by model) to select the template.
As concerns claim 7 and 14 the invention of claims 1 and 8, further comprising: providing the communication to a machine learning model to determining a communication channel (0072-communication type, priority; 0071-0076; 0098-communication channel) for transmitting the communication to the target recipient; and transmitting (0076-message can be routed; 0085-transmit communication; 0096-display response data) the communication to the target recipient via the determined communication channel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0034087 disclose machine learning; contextual info; messages. USPN 9,268,762 disclose templates, recipient preferences, template database. USPN 11,887,585 disclose ranking based on contextual data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-7063. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher L Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/JOHN B WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights