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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/01/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
The claims at a high level recite classifying and marching documents.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-20 recite a method and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites –
▪ providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a neural network to generate a plurality of clusters (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using neural network to form clusters amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
▪ determining that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters based on information indicating that a conversation matching a query is not a part of the first cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically associate clusters based on matching);
▪ executing a remedial action to prevent processing the first cluster as a duplicate cluster by generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform an action to prevent duplicate processing and mentally add keywords to clusters); and
▪ storing topic memberships by linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically link data to topic memberships).
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claims 8 and 15, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ computer-readable medium, a memory; a processing device and a neural network (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using machine learning model to classify document amount to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception);
▪ storing topic memberships (A generic computer functions of storing data that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea);
▪ configuring a plurality of subsystems of a communication system to operate in unison to answer topic queries associated with the topic memberships (A generic computer functions of computer processing that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitation does not disclose any improvement to such operations or functions).
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements, however, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1, 8 and 15 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For these reasons, independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8 and 15, which include similar additional elements as claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Note, that in similar case, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), the Courts have identified that the additional elements of displaying and analyzing data, as shown in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1, 8 and 15 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor, hardware and the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 claims further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2, 9, 16:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ identifying, for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, a topic and a keyword without considering information from another cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform identification or topics and ignoring unrelated data).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ determining a first size of the first cluster of the plurality of clusters; determining a second size of the second cluster of the plurality of clusters; and comparing the first size of the first cluster and the second size of the second cluster to a predetermined threshold (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform size determining and comparison of clusters).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ categorizing the first cluster according to a first level of significance responsive to comparing the first size of the first cluster to the predetermined threshold; and categorizing the second cluster according to a second level of significance responsive to comparing the second size of the second cluster to the predetermined threshold (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can perform categorization and comparison of size to threshold).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ measuring a ratio of false positives (FPs) associated with the first cluster; and determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can logically determine FPs).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ determining, for a candidate cluster of the plurality of clusters, a cluster size to allow an extraction of a highest-order n-gram from the candidate cluster, wherein an n-gram may be a unigram, a bigram, and a trigram; and generating the candidate cluster having the cluster size (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally perform extraction of n-grams).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claims 7 and 14:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ determining, using search results, an accuracy indicating a degree in which the set of keywords identify the first cluster (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can mentally determine accuracy).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are thus, also patent ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Objections /Construction
▪ Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitation – “configuring a plurality of subsystems of a communication system to operate in unison”. It is not exactly clear of what is being required by the limitation.
The specification discloses - “If the communication system 102 include multiple subsystems, then each subsystem is configured to work in unison with the other subsystems, such that the multiple subsystems can accurately maintain the memberships as if they are a single system.”
However, such description / limitation is broadly applicable to any processing system or computer components. I.e. it would be more burdensome to find a system without any subsystems or a system with plurality of subsystems that are operating not in a unison. Thus, the limitation, on the record is construed to be broadly referring to any processing system or a computer with multiple, distinct components, modules, hardware and software components /subsystems that achieve a common goal of providing results.
The applicant is advised to indicate how such limitation differs from any generic computer platform a computer program is design to operate upon. Broadly, any generic computer comprise a plurality of subsystems of a system that operate in unison based on a software configured / installed on its platform to execute a desired functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 20100312769) in view of Misiewicz et al. (US 20220138258)and in further view of Nadolski et al. (US 20180241764).
Regarding claim 1, Bailey teaches a method comprising:
providing, by a processing device, a plurality of conversations to a
determining that a first cluster of the plurality of clusters overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters (C7:720) based on information indicating that a conversation
executing a remedial action to prevent processing the first cluster as a duplicate cluster ([0068] “remaining soft cluster overlaps are eliminated by assigning each message that is present in more than one cluster to the one cluster having the "closest"”, [0069] “Two clusters are merged”, C6 “eliminating duplication of messages so that each text message is found in only one soft cluster”, [0172]) by generating an updated set of keywords for the first cluster of the plurality of clusters ([0070] “a list of words and phrases is generated that have high IDF values indicative of the most descriptive words and phrases in the message set, along with the associated neighborhood sentiment value for each word and phrase in the list”, [0113])(see NOTE);
storing topic memberships ([0120], [0152] “topic group IDS from the classifier and the appropriate combinations of topic group IDs are then stored in the database as possible descriptors for the message set”) by linking the plurality of conversations and the updated set of keywords ([0077]-[0078], [0084], [0136] “a listing of other topic group IDs associated with the message sets that are responsive to the topic group request, and sample messages from these message sets”); and
configuring a plurality of subsystems of a communication system to operate in unison to answer topic queries associated with the topic memberships ([0088], [0152], [0183]).
Bailey does not explicitly teach a neural network. Instead, Bailey teaches using classification rules derived or inferred from knowledge base to generate embeddings (vectors), using machine learning, such as Support Vector Machines ([0046]). However, Misiewicz discloses the same in [0019], [0027]-[0028], [0048].
Further, Bailey does not explicitly teach, however Misiewicz discloses overlaps a second cluster of the plurality of clusters based on information indicating that a conversation matching a query is not a part of the first cluster ([0063] “cluster is receiving a high amount or volume of searches, but is not returning search results (e.g., has a low search result rate) ... causing the failure to generate a search result for the search terms of the cluster”, [0068] “search terms that were not part of an aggregate set of search terms associated with a set of clusters”, [0070]).
Further, Misiewicz discloses configuring a plurality of subsystems of a communication system to operate in unison ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey to include a neural network and include query match without being a part of the first cluster as disclosed by Misiewicz. Doing so would enable an improved searching experience (Misiewicz [0022]).
NOTE - Bailey teaches eliminating duplication of messages and elimination of overlaps in clusters, which is construed to be analogues to the limitation – “executing a remedial action to prevent processing the first cluster as a duplicate cluster.” However, to merely obviate such reasoning, Nadolski discloses executing a remedial action to prevent processing the first cluster as a duplicate cluster ([0010], [0188], [0204] and [0209]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey to prevent processing a duplicate cluster as disclosed by Nadolski. Doing so would help identify hidden relationships and drive increased efficiencies (Nadolski [0075]).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Bailey as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium further comprising: identifying, for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, a topic and a keywork without considering information from another cluster (Misiewicz [0041], [0044], [0081]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Bailey as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium, further comprising:
determining a first size of the first cluster of the plurality of clusters (Misiewicz [0021], [0017], [0050], [0067]);
determining a second size of the second cluster of the plurality of clusters (Misiewicz [0044]); and comparing the first size of the first cluster and the second size of the second cluster to a predetermined threshold (Misiewicz [0037], [0043], [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Bailey as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium, further comprising:
categorizing the first cluster according to a first level of significance (Misiewicz [0054]-[0063], [0076]) responsive to comparing the first size of the first cluster to the predetermined threshold (Misiewicz [0037], [0043], [0050]-[0052], [0076]); and
categorizing the second cluster according to a second level of significance responsive (Misiewicz [0054]-[0062]) to comparing the second size of the second cluster to the predetermined threshold (Misiewicz [0037], [0043], [0050]-[0052], [0077], [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Huddleston to include cluster size analysis and categorization as disclosed by Misiewicz. Doing so would reduce the instances of noisy and overlarge clusters and enable an improved searching experience (Misiewicz [0017], [0022)).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as modified and in further view of Chen et al. (US 20170126603) and Salammagari et al. (US 20200082214).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Bailey as modified teaches the method, the system and the medium, further comprising:
measuring
Bailey does not explicitly teach, however Chen discloses measuring a ratio of false positives FPs associated with the first cluster ([0025], [0027], [0044]) and determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster ([0040] [0046], where “RMF representing a set of topics” Abstract, [0093], [0099]).
Bailey does not explicitly teach, however Salammagari discloses determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster ([0062], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey to measuring a ratio of false positives FPs associated with the first cluster as disclosed by Chen and determining, using heuristics, that the first cluster is a subtopic of the second cluster as discoed by Salammagari. Doing so would handle data in clustered systems in an efficient and scalable manner (Chen [0017)) and provide effective assistance to the customers and improve a quality of customer interaction experience (Salammagari [0005]).
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as modified and in further view of Huddleston et al. (US 20180293607).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Bailey as modified does not explicitly teach, however Huddleston discloses the method, the system and the medium, wherein providing, by the processing device, the plurality of conversations to the neural network to generate the plurality of clusters, comprising:
determining, for a candidate cluster of the plurality of clusters, a cluster size to allow an extraction of a highest-order n-gram from the candidate cluster, wherein an n-gram may be a unigram, a bigram (Huddleston [0466]), and a trigram (Huddleston [0468]); and generating the candidate cluster having the cluster size (Huddleston [0190]-[0191], Misiewicz [0017], [0021], [0050]- [0052], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey as modified to include highest-order n-gram as disclosed by Huddleston. Doing so would allow more efficient and accurate analytics generation by identifying most relevant contextual dimensions (Huddleston [0073]).
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as modified and in view of Epstein et a. (US 20160062985).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Bailey as modified does not explicitly teach, however Epstein discloses the method and the system, further comprising: determining, using search results, an accuracy indicating a degree in which the set of keywords identify the first cluster (Epstein [0055], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Bailey as modified to include accuracy degree as disclosed by Epstein. Doing so would improve context modeling accuracy and improve accuracies of the language models (Epstein [0003], [0057]).
Further note additional prior art (US 10410626) discloses claims 7 and 14 in C36L9-13, 36-41 and further obviates the teachings of Bailey.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, the applicant argues that the presently amended claims –
“therefore integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and recites significantly more than mere classification or mental evaluation. Even if certain steps could be described at a high level using words like "determining" or "matching," amended claim 1 is not reasonably characterized as a process that can be performed in the human mind as claimed,” “This sequence is not a mere "human judgment" process.”
The arguments are not persuasive. The claims are directed to a well-known practice od analyzing and clustering conversation using a neural network (machine learning). While the claims may represent an improvement to the clustering by not processing duplicate clusters, they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application. I.e. the claims recite an improvement to the abstract idea and not an improvement to a computing systems it operates upon, nor an improvement to the neural network (machine learning).
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55. Acclaim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses 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 judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
- Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
- Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
- Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP §2106.05(c); and
- 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 - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
- Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(+);
- Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
- Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 ("Prong Two’).
In view of the 2019 Revised Guidance, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract element recited in the only independent claim is: neural network, processing device, and a processor and a memory (claim 8), medium (claim 15). These generic computer hardware merely perform generic computer functions of receiving, processing and transmitting data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant's determining of clusters matching conversation data and preventing duplicate clusters from being processed is still a logical concept and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
The applicant further argues –
“claim 1 then requires storing topic memberships … these are not mere post-solution activities”; “last step of amended claim 1 is especially important to eligibility because it imposes a concrete, system-level operational constraint that ties the stored topic membership data to distributed query answering … claim 1 requires, "configuring a plurality of subsystems of a communication system to operate in unison to answer topic queries associated with the topic memberships." This limitation is not generic "use a computer" language. It recites a plurality of subsystems within a communication system and requires those subsystems to be configured to operate in unison for the specific purpose of answering topic queries associated with the stored topic memberships.”
The arguments are not persuasive. This recited additional element is merely a generic computer component. The limitation “operate in unison” is applicable to any generic computer. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on appeal merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
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 POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights