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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 2
First, the claim requires a server comprising at least a processor and memory, and multiple defined modules operating thereon. The receiving module parses unstructured electronic communication data to generate a structured communication representation stored in memory. The generation and storage of a structured communication representation in server memory is a computer-implemented data transformation. A human mind cannot parse unstructured electronic communication data into a structured communication representation stored in memory of a server.
Examiner respectfully disagrees
The steps argued by the Applicant as seen above do not require a computer. Parsing data is mere analyzing data with respect to a communication. In addition, the claimed invention does not actively store the structured communication. The limitation to generate a structured communication representation stored in a memory does not show an active storing step, it is merely describing the location of the structured communication. In addition, the memory is merely an additional element and is not part of the analysis of Step 2A prong 1.
Applicant argues on page 2
Second, the task generator module generates a communication task comprising a structured communication task data object stored in memory. The creation and storage of a structured communication task data object within server memory is a machine-based data structure operation. It is not a mental step. The claim requires a data object stored in electronic memory and used by downstream modules. A human cannot mentally create or persist such a server-based data object.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation, generate at least a communication task as a function of the at least a request for a task performance, wherein the at least a communication task comprises a structured communication task data object stored in the memory, is a mere abstract idea step of generating a task. A user is able to generate a task based off of data. The system is not actively storing this task in memory, but merely describing the location of the structure communication task data object. In addition, the memory is merely an additional element and is not part of the analysis of Step 2A prong 1.
Applicant argues on page 3
Third, and most importantly, the communication protocol generator module determines a communication protocol datum comprising a protocol parameter set defining transmission rules governing formatting, routing, and delivery of a communication output. The claim further requires: capturing historical communication training data; creating a communication training set comprising correlated data entries; and iteratively training the communication protocol generator
These limitations recite iterative machine training that modifies stored transmission rules within a protocol parameter set. The modification of transmission rules stored in server memory based on correlations derived from historical communication data is not something that can be performed in the human mind. It requires processing of electronic communication data, generation of correlated training entries, and updating parameterized rule sets in memory that govern electronic transmission behavior. Such iterative modification of machine-stored transmission rules exceeds the bounds of any mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Determining a protocol, capturing data, and creating a data training set are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. In addition, iteratively training is also a mental process step that does not need a computer. A user is able to guess and check to pick the best variables in multiple iterations (i.e. iterative training). For example, the user can keep on modifying the rules until the user is satisfied. In addition, the claims do not state machine learning so it is unclear why the Applicant states machine training. Examiner advises to include machine learning in the claims.
Applicant argues on page 3
Finally, the claim requires generating a communication output data structure and
transmitting that data structure according to the protocol parameter set via a transmission source module. Transmission of a communication output data structure according to machine-defined transmission rules is a concrete electronic communication operation. A human mind cannot perform electronic transmission according to a protocol parameter set implemented in server memory.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Transmitting data is merely a data manipulation step. Sending data does not require a computer nor does creating an output. For example, a user is able to make an output and send it to another user. This limitation also does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone).
Applicant argues on page 4
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 does not recite a "certain method of organizing human activity" as that category is defined under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims also recite task management by generating tasks as well as interactions between different users such as someone who makes the task and someone who is responsible to do the task. The claims also recite transmitting communications. The Applicant’s specification also teaches risk function in para 0110-0111. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, business relations, mitigating risk, and interactions between people).
Applicant argues on page 7
When considered as a whole, amended claim 1 applies any alleged abstract idea in a manner that imposes meaningful limits through defined data structures, protocol parameter sets, iterative training mechanisms, and server-based transmission enforcement. The claim reflects a specific technological implementation that improves electronic communication processing rather than a drafting effort to monopolize a mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Processing communications is merely an abstract idea step of analyzing data. This is not the same nor is analogous to the court case of McRO as claimed by the Applicant. The claimed invention is not solving a technical problem like McRO, but is solving a business problem of analyzing communications and task management. Applicant’s specification in para 0003 also state the business problem of analyzing text. In contrast, the patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes. This automation was accomplished through rules that were applied to the timed transcript to determine the morph weight outputs.
Applicant argues on page 10
The Office Action has not demonstrated that it was conventional to define and modify a protocol parameter set governing formatting, routing, and delivery of communications through iterative training based on correlated historical communication data. Nor has it shown that dynamically modifying stored transmission rules in server memory to govern electronic communication output was routine or widely practiced. Without such evidence, the rejection cannot satisfy the evidentiary burden imposed by Berkheimer and the MPEP.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner has not identified iterative training as an additional element, rather it is part of the abstract idea steps that were defined in step 2A. In addition, Examiner did not used the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 2/5/2026 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” Accordingly, Berkheimer evidence is not required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving module is designed and configured to, task generator module is designed and configured to, communication protocol generator module is designed and configured to, communication output generator is designed and configured to, transmission source module is designed and configured to in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-20 are directed to a system and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 11 recite the limitations of
…receive a conversational response from…user; and identify at least a request for a task performance as a function of the conversational response…generate at least a communication task as a function of the at least a request for a task performance… determine a communication protocol datum for the at least a communication task as a function of the at least a request for a task performance…generate a communication output as a function of the at least a communication task…transmit the communication output to the at least a user…
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 1/8/2026, the claims further recite
which comprises: capturing historical communication training data from historical communications between the at least a user and contacts of the at least a user; creating a communication training set as a function of the historical communication training data, wherein the communication training set comprises a plurality of data entries containing the historical communication training data correlated to respective responses; and training, iteratively, the communication protocol generator module as a function of the communication training set…
With respect to Applicant’s amendment on 3/4/2026, the claims further recite
by parsing the…data to generate a structured communication representation… to modify
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of receiving, identifying, generating, determining, and transmitting data. The claims further recite capturing, creating, parsing, modifying, and training data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and server, the claim language encompasses simply receiving a conversational response, identifying a task request with respect to the conversational response, generating a task, determining a communication protocol datum, and generating/transmitting the communication output with respect to the task. The claims also recite further data manipulation steps such as parsing data and modifying data that are done in relation to the transmission rules. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. Determining tasks based on received information as well transmitting tasks is not novel and has been done before the technological age. The Applicant’s specification in para 0003 also talk about the steps of analyzing text which is also not novel and has been done before the technological age. In addition, the claims recite capturing and creating data which falls under mere data analysis. In addition, the claims state training with respect to a data set. Training merely means picking the best variable which can also be done without a computer.
The claims also recite task management (i.e. analyzing data to generate a task) as well as interactions between different users such as someone who makes the task and someone who is responsible to do the task by way of transmitting communications. The Applicant’s specification also teaches risk function in para 0110-0111. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people, mitigating risk). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of server, system, receiving module, user device, task generator module, communicator protocol generator module, communication output generator, and transmission source module.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using 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.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe the variables about the task such as task priority. In addition, the dependent claims further describe how the communication protocol is determined such as by user preference data. In addition, the dependent claims further describes additional users with respect to the task such as task performance owner.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
server, system, memory, receiving module, user device, task generator module, communicator protocol generator module, electronic communication data, communication output generator, and transmission source module
Claim 5 and 15 recite task database
Claim 6 and 16 recites a user device of the at least a communication task performance owner.
Claim 10 and 20 recite electronic conversational response.
Claim 11 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 11 further recites receiving module, user device, task generator module, communicator protocol generator module, electronic communication data, memory, communication output generator, and transmission source module
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0009-0011.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0009-0011. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Skujins (US20150356517A1) Discloses a system and method that is provided whereby a central control computer receives work assignment information, processes the information, transmits work schedules to employees, and updates schedules based on job status and travel time between work sites.
Neumann (US 20200315527 A1) Discloses training of data sets with respect to machine learning models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625