DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/2026 has been entered.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
In the Amendment dated 5/6/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, 11, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 10) and manufacture (claims 11 – 20) which recite the abstract idea steps of
receiving a transcript of a conversation between a first party and a second party;
identify the parties in the transcript
determining a first sentiment score by evaluating the transcript;
selecting an algorithm based on information;
querying an engagement data database with an identification of the first party and receiving engagement data representing an engagement of the first party with assets associated with the second party;
evaluating the first sentiment score and the engagement data to output a value indicative of the likelihood of the first party to take a particular action; and
determining whether the value is above a threshold, and if so, sending a notification specifying shipping a product associated with the particular action to the first party.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. Emphasis added.
[0068] 2.3 BENEFITS AND IMPROVEMENTS
[0069] The embodiments of this disclosure offer numerous benefits and improvements over prior approaches. The techniques of this disclosure are highly scalable as compared to custom scripting or other manual programming techniques. Embodiments of the computer systems allow enterprises to create or build unique models to determine the likelihood of a second enterprise or person taking a particular action. That likelihood allows for the enterprise to better manage its resources and direct products with a more intelligent supply chain flow. Moreover, the embodiments described herein improve the computing system and technological environment of the enterprise by allowing the enterprise to create or build unique, trained models in order to transform a large amount of raw data into score data and further into data that is usable by the computing system and administrators to implement new processes or take actions.
[0070] Furthermore, in past practice, human intuition or heuristics based on memory or feelings have been used to determine the propensity of an HCP to prescribe a pharmaceutical composition and/or determine the next best actions to take after each digital meeting. Using embodiments of the disclosure, data-driven sentiment scores based on evidence represented in meeting transcription data and digital engagement behavior of the HCP can be evaluated using machine learning models to more objectively and accurately predict the propensity, whether the propensity is increasing or decreasing, and/or the next best actions to take in relation to a particular digital meeting.
Therefore, understanding the claimed invention as a whole and in light of the Specification, the invention is directed toward providing better data for supplying prescriptions which are part of commercial transactions. The invention applies technology such as machine learning and natural language processing to this abstract idea. That technology provides benefits that are achieved by applying the abstract idea to technology. The invention does not invent the machine learning, the invention does not invent the natural language processing, the invention does not invent the sentiment score, but rather applies these tools to a field of use. There is no technical or technological improvement to a technical problem.
The result of the invention is data. That data has a potential usage but does not have a practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20, reciting particular aspects of how ranking and sorting may be performed but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of cause the one or more processors to execute amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea)
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receive a … amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of querying a digital engagement amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, recitation of automatically sending … amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Please see how the Specification describes the invention applied to technology.
[0033] In an embodiment, a computer system 100 comprises components implemented at least partially by hardware at one or more computing devices, such as one or more hardware processors executing stored program instructions stored in one or more memories for performing the functions described herein. In other words, all functions described herein are intended to indicate operations that are performed using programming in a special-purpose computer or general-purpose computer in various embodiments. FIG. 1 illustrates only one of many possible arrangements of components configured to execute the programming described herein. Other arrangements may include fewer or different components, and the division of work between the components may vary depending on the arrangement.
The Specification does not describe the invention as a technical or technological improvement. The improvements, from paragraph 6, “As such, an automated method of analyzing these records to predict events and react accordingly is needed to improve the operation of the enterprise and its supply chain.” This idea of improving supply chain analysis is repeated, as quoted above, in paragraphs 69 and 70.
The Examiner specifically is pointing out this limitation as describing the technology as a tool. The development of the machine learning model is not disclosed but the result is described at a high level using functional terms.
wherein the trained machine learning model has been trained by querying a database of domain data to select domain data comprising data elements based on the natural language transcript, the first party and/or the second party within the natural language transcript,
the domain data comprising labeled conversation data of conversations using terminology and a taxonomy of sentiments,
the domain data comprising a digitally stored data table storing a plurality of words or phrases and one or more associated scores that are unique to a category of emotional data, and fine-tune trained using the domain data to form the trained machine learning model to accept the natural language transcript as an input, predict or classify emotional content of one or more portions of the natural language transcript related to the first party, and output a sentiment score, the sentiment score representing a likelihood of the first party to take an action;
First, the machine learning is described as already been trained “the trained machine learning model has been trained by…” The training of the machine learning model is not claimed.
Second, the training data required is claimed at a high level using non-specific terms as, “the domain data comprising labeled conversation data of conversations using terminology and a taxonomy of sentiments.” What is required in the training data is not disclosed or claimed.
Third, how the training occurs is not claimed or disclosed.
Fourth, the outcome of the model is described at a high level using functional terms, “to select domain data comprising data elements based on the natural language transcript.”
The result is that the claims and the disclosure describe generic tool requirements but do not describe the specific creation of that tool.
As these tools are described passively and not positively being created or not positively used, the Examiner does not believe that a 112(a) rejection is required.
The result of the invention is data.
[0062] At decision block 207, the value is compared to a predetermined threshold. If the value is not greater than the predetermined threshold, then the value may be stored in a profile of the first party within a database at block 209. If the value is greater than the predetermined threshold, then a notification to a user computing device associated with the second party is transmitted at block 208. In some embodiments, the predetermined threshold may be manually set by an administrator or automatically updated based on rules associated with the second party. For example, the threshold may be adjusted based on a number of products associated with the particular action that the second party has in inventory, a price of the particular products, a number of available samples, and so on. The notification may be in the form of a push notification, an alarm, an email, a text message, etc. The notification is configured to notify personnel that the particular action is likely to be taken. In some embodiments, the second computer may automatically submit an order to the second computer if the value is above the threshold, where the order specifies shipping a product associated with the event to the first party.
Note how the claimed invention and the Specification agree that the data is either stored or transmitted. Therefore the Examiner believes that there is no practical application. Even if the data is “a push notification, an alarm, an email, a text message, etc,” that data only has a function if and only if it is acted upon.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example claims 3 and 13 describe the invention having a “model has been selected from a FLARE model, a spaCY model, a BERT model, a RoBERTa model, or a ClinicalBERT model.” The invention does not create these models but uses them as tools. This is further emphasized in MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described “the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’” 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as 1 – 20; receiving and sending, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); determining a score, evaluating the score, determining if the score is above a threshold, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Additional elements:
Computer – paragraph 33 “In an embodiment, a computer system 100 comprises components implemented at least partially by hardware at one or more computing devices…” paragraph 72 The computing devices may be server computers, workstations, personal computers, portable computer systems, handheld devices, mobile computing devices…
natural language – It should be emphasized that the Specification does not show how the natural language processing occurs. There is an inference in paragraph 48, “performing a machine learning algorithm on the noise in order to transform the noise into natural language text” but the details of the model, the details of the specific training of that model including training data is absent.
Machine learning model - paragraph 39 states that the model exists, “The machine learning model 170 is a trained machine learning model that has been built, for example, using the build instructions machine learning model …” Paragraph 39 goes on to state, “For example, the machine learning model 170 may be” … “Or, the machine learning model can be any of the transformer-based machine learning models such as…”
single-shot detection or singleshot detection or SSD – This is only described in paragraph 57 as, “The trained machine learning model may evaluate all the transcript data, for example, using singleshot detection (SSD), and automatically output the first sentiment score representing the likelihood of the first party to perform a particular action.”
database – paragraph 37 a commercially available …
program / instructions – paragraph 78 the instructions may comprise…
networking – paragraphs 36, 72 “The computing devices may be server computers, workstations, personal computers, portable computer systems, handheld devices, mobile computing devices, wearable devices, body-mounted or implantable devices, smartphones, smart appliances, internetworking devices… paragraph 88 Computer system 800 also includes a communication interface 818 coupled to I/O subsystem 802. Communication interface 818 provides a two-way data communication coupling to network link(s) 820 that are directly or indirectly connected to at least one communication networks, such as a network 822 or a public or private cloud on the Internet…
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 20, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, trained machine learning model, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13 recites the limitation " the trained machine learning model" in the 6th limitation. The new limitation above includes, “selecting, based at least on information regarding the first party and the second party, a machine learning type from…” The limitation requires selecting a “type.” The Applicant also may know that FLARE and spaCY are not machine learning models but work with other models.
There is no need for a written description (112(a)) rejection because these models are known. The Applicant is applying known technology to an abstract idea in known ways.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
B. All Claims Recite Eligible Subject Matter
Step 2A, including Prong l(a) and Prong l(b) - "Directed To" Assessment, Identification of Limitations, Subject Matter Groupings
The Applicant states, “Instead, as presented in this paper, the claims recite a computer-implemented process of transforming different digital inputs into an automated operational output in a networked environment.” The invention is the application of technology to the abstract idea to obtain all the benefits of applying that technology to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “The Office action also appears to collapse the claim into a high-level abstraction while omitting several technical constraints actually recited in the claim.” The Examiner separates the abstract idea from the technology applied to the abstract idea.
The Applicant further states, “The claims, therefore, do not merely invoke a preexisting machine learning tool as a black box, but recite a particular way of forming and using a model in a computer-implemented transcript-analysis pipeline.” The question of “particular way” regards whether the invention is a technological improvement. The disclosure does not show that the invention is directed towards a technological improvement.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B - The Additional Elements Integrate any Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
The Applicant states, “The present claims recite particular limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and satisfy Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted.
The claims do not end in "mere data"
The Applicant states, “The Office action primarily asserts that "[t]he result of the invention is data," suggesting notifications or messages are only relevant if someone acts on them later. (Office Action at 6-7.) The Applicant disagrees. As amended, the claims do not terminate in a score, stored data record, or passive notification. Instead, if the threshold is satisfied, the claims require automatically generating and transmitting a machine-readable command to a computer device associated with the second party, and that command is configured to cause that device to ship a product without human intervention.” The claims ends with the transmission of information as before. Here, the information directs a potential action. However, as before that action is not performed.
The claims recite a particularized machine-implemented use of the intermediate computations
The Applicant states, “The amended claims recite a complete computer-implemented sequence in which inputs derived from transcripts and engagement are processed through a specifically selected and fine-tuned model to produce an automated machine-readable command. In this manner, the claims provide a practical application.” The Applicant is therefore stating that the invention regards the input of data, the processing of the inputted data, and outputting the result of inputted and processed data. There is no practical application because the invention ends at the output.
The Applicant states, “But that rationale does not fit a final recitation of automatic generation and transmission of a machine-readable command configured to cause another system to act without human intervention.” However, it is not claimed that these commands are received and executed. The commands are only transmitted.
The claims recite a particular way of technical implementation
The Applicant states, “The amended claims therefore do more than apply an alleged abstract idea in a technological environment; they recite a particular way of implementing transcript analysis and automated control of another system.” That may be true but the invention is not disclosed as a technological improvement. The Applicant’s “technical implementation” is different from the Examiner’s “technological improvement.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moudy et al Pub. No.: US 2016/0300135 Applications of text mining and sentiment analysis systems can be applied in various fields including market research, customer experience management, and social media monitoring applications.
Gupta et al Pub. No.: US 2020/0065848 A device may obtain customer data, associated with a customer identifier, that includes an indication of a recency of a past purchase, a frequency of past purchases, and/or a monetary value associated with past purchases by a customer associated with the customer identifier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights