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 2, 12, and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 8/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection. The rejection maintained.
Applicant argues on page 18
Applicant respectfully submits that the elements now incorporated into the independent claims introduce additional details of the machine learning models that cannot practically be performed mentally
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The machine learning model is treated as an additional element. Additional elements are not part of step 2A prong 1 where an abstract idea is identified. The amendments filed 8/18/2026 are merely descriptive of the CRM functions. The machine learning model are not actively run in the claims, but rather the claims state administering usage for them.
Applicant argues on page 18
recite a clear technical improvement
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not recite any technical improvement. The claims are not solving a technical problem but a but a business problem. Para 0003 of Applicant’s Specification recites help decision-makers increase revenue, maximize profits, increase customer satisfaction, increase customer retention, increase market share, and increase sales and service effectiveness within an organization. These are business problems faced by businesses. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. 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.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/18/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103 rejection.
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, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 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, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium, apparatus, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 11 and 21 recite the limitations of
Executing… CRM functions…each…function associated with and configured to use one or more…models and one or more data models; administering…usage of the …models and the data models based on (i)…function of the multiple…functions being executed and (ii) a specified use case associated with the at least one… function being executed; generating evidence packages associated with predictions produced by the …models, each evidence package identifying features that contribute to the associated prediction generated by the…model; and providing one or more of the evidence packages as one or more inputs to at least one of the…models.
wherein: each of one or more of the…CRM functions is associated with (i) a core …model and one or more additional…models and (ii) a core data model and one or more additional data models, the one or more additional… models and the one or more additional data models extending the core…model and the core data model to one or more industry-specific functionalities…administers usage of the core…model, the one or more additional…models, the core data model, and the one or more additional data models for each of the one or more… CRM functions.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of executing, administering, generating, and providing 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 an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium, the claim language encompasses simply executing functions with models, using the models, and generating/providing evidence packages. A user is able to execute a function such as carryout a task. A user is also able to utilize models to carry out a task. A user is also able to generate and provide data to a model such as an evidence package. These steps are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The amendments filed on 8/18/2026 are merely further descriptive of the functions in the claims which include using models. Using models does not require a computer.
The claims also recite CRM functions which deals with customer relationship management. The CRM functions relate to determining business variables such as gaps in revenue target and predicting transactions (See para 0041-0045 in Specifications). These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people). 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 claims recite the additional elements of machine learning model, apparatus, processing device, non-transitory computer readable medium, processors, and model orchestrator.
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 what data the system used to make predictions such as internal and external data. The dependent claims further describe variables such as opportunity scoring and precision revenue forecasting. Forecasting is also considered an abstract idea step since a user is able to forecast data.
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
Method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 1 further recites machine learning model and model orchestrator
Claim 11 recites apparatus, processing device, model orchestrator, and machine learning model
Claim 21 recites non-transitory computer readable medium, machine learning model, processors, and model orchestrator.
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 0108.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0108. 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 claim as a whole amounts 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, 3-11, 13-21, and 23-30 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.
Mahalanobish (US20220292407A1) teaches a main machine learning model with different sub models as seen in para 0104.
Doan (US11182719B1) who teaches a machine learning model in conjunction with work plan templates that are selected by the model.
Gaur (US20210233164A1) who teaches a probability that a customer purchase will happen.
Haruta (US20180137526A1) who teaches churn rates of customers.
Bakulin (US20210042168A1) teaches likelihood of sales increase or decrease.
Towriss (US20170161758A1) teaches product configurations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
